rafru^
University of California • Berkeley
Caroline Moore Charles
THE ACTION AND PASSION OF OUR TIMES
Regional Oral History Office
The Bancroft Library
Regional Oral History Office University of California
The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
Volunteer Leadership Series
Caroline Moore Charles
THE ACTION AND PASSION OF OUR TIMES
With an Introduction by
Leslie Luttgens
An Interview Conducted by
Gabrielle Morris
in 1974, 1977, 1978
Copy no.
Copyright fcT) 1979 by the Regents of the University of California
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Caroline Moore Charles
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION by Leslie Luttgens
INTERVIEW HISTORY vii
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY viii
1. FAMILY AND CHILDHOOD
Stockton Early Settlers
Aspirations and Attitudes
2. STUDENT YEARS AT STANFORD 6
Freshman Traumas
Allan Charles
Organizational Ability and Awards
3. BEGINNING A COMMUNITY CAREER: SAN FRANCISCO LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS, 1936-1950
Pros and Cons of Labor Issues
Emma McLaughlin
Organizational Frustration
4. VARIETIES OF COMMUNITY EFFORT
Volunteer Service: Motivation, Rewards, and Hazards
Stanford Board of Trustees, 1954
Unifying Influence of Hospital Auxiliaries
Building Organizational Strength
Other Directions: Housing Authority and Public Television
5. EARLY EXPERIENCE ON THE ROSENBERG FOUNDATION BOARD
Charlie Elkus [Charles de Young Elkus , Sr.]
Development of Public Compassion
Prestigious Directors for a New Organization
Confronting Controversy: The Institute of Pacific Relations
and KQED 42
Balance and Variety of Attitudes 45
6. DEVELOPING GRANTING POLICIES 47
Leslie Ganyard, 1948-1958 47
Health Care and Rural Communities 49
Urban Pressures and Youth
Invited Applications and Obese Budgets 52
1950s: Interagency Approach to Multi-Problem Families 54
Individuals in Need vs. Broad Social Theory 55
Evaluating Grant Results 57
7. SATISFACTIONS AND HAZARDS OF BOARD MEMBERSHIP 60
Responding to Individual Proposals 60
Knowledge of Community Networks 62
Time for a Woman President: 1961 64
Communication and Personal Relations 66
Responsibility to Staff: Leslie Ganyard Retires 69
8. THE FOUNDATION AND THE COMMUNITY: 1958-1974 71
Ruth Chance 71
Defending Applications : Innovations in Military Counseling
and Housing 74
New Organizations in the Valley 76
Input from Experience with Other Organizations 78
Working with Young Adults 79
Expectations of Support 84
Awareness and Regulation of Foundations 86
Some Continuity of Grantee Relationships 89
Young Applicants 90
Accountability 92
Board Studies Community Programs and Attitudes 92
Observations on Decision-Making by Committees 94
9. PRESIDENT OF THE ROSENBERG BOARD: 1971-1974 99
Women as Presidents 99
Refining the Foundation's Goals 101
Departure 106
Selecting Board Members 107
Progress and Change 110
APPENDIX I - The President's Message, Rosenberg Foundation Annual
Report, 1973 115
10. LECTURER IN COMMUNITY SERVICE, MILLS COLLEGE, 1949-1959 117
Influence of President Lynn White 117
Theory and Practice of Volunteering 121
Staff Standing 131
Freedom of Choice and Leadership Potential 133
Career Possibilities 139
A Note on the Junior League 143
Understanding Staff 146
Styles of Feminism 147
11. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS' PRESIDENCY, 1948-1950, AND MAYORAL
APPOINTMENTS 150
Earlier San Francisco Women Leaders: Public Dance Hall
Committee Issue 150
San Francisco Center of the California Civic League Becomes
the League of Women Voters 152
Encouraging New Leadership 155
Advisory Board of Health 157
Housing Authority Concerns 161
12. STANFORD HOSPITAL AUXILIARY IN SAN FRANCISCO, 1956-1958 164
Community Goodwill, Move to Palo Alto 164
Getting Started 167
Recruiting Sponsors and Other Special Talents 171
Interpersonal Relations, Developing Continuity 177
Transition — Hospital Board of Directors 184
Becoming Presbyterian Hospital 187
Pattern for Other Hospital Auxiliaries 191
Spiritual Rewards, Fellowship, Social Responsibility 197
Intentions and Close Encounters in the World of Volunteer Work 198
13. STANFORD UNIVERSITY TRUSTEE, 1954-1974 205
Appointment and Fellow Trustee 205
Building and Grounds Committee 209
PACE Campaign and Other Fund Raising 211
Input on Construction 216
Nominating Committee 221
Advocate for Students 225
Attitudes of Faculty and Alumni 229
Student Challenges and Participation 232
Selecting a President 235
Maintaining Communication and Varieties of Dissent 238
14. PUBLIC BROADCASTING, LOCAL AND NATIONAL 244
Early Years of KQED, Impact of Newsroom 244
President, 1972-1974: Management Difficulties and Broader
Representation on the Board 249
Membership, Fund Raising, Programming 253
Recruiting Leadership 258
Interaction with Commercial Television 261
Thoughts on Oliver Wendell Holmes and Teilhard de Chardin 265
Professional and Lay Roles: KQED, American Conservatory
Theater, and Stanford 268
Public Broadcasting System: Reorganizing for Federal Funding 271
National Programming and Ralph Rogers 's Role 274
15. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON COMMUNITY SERVICE 278
San Francisco Housing Authority: Minority Participation 278
Politics and Pressure Groups 282
Volunteers' Expectations 285
Government Funding 286
New Ways of Approaching Old Problems 287
Advice to Volunteers 294
APPENDIX II - Some Thoughts on the Establishment of Successful
Auxiliaries, by Caroline M. Charles 297
APPENDIX III - Press clipping on Status of Women Award 301
APPENDIX IV - KQED Focus article 302
TAPE GUIDE 304
INDEX 305
PREFACE
The Volunteer Leadership Series is an ongoing project of the Regional
Oral History Office. It is designed to document the work of carefully-
selected Bay Area men and women in improving the quality of life in their
communities through nonprofit organizations. The interviews form a resource
for greater understanding of the nature and impact of volunteer activity.
This project had its origin in the Bay Area Foundation History Series
completed in 1976 and in the realization that many persons interviewed for
other projects of this office about their business or professional careers
had spent equal time and effort over the years on their civic activities.
The series is designed to study the origins of individuals' interest in
and dedication to voluntary endeavors and the processes by which private,
nonprofit groups, frequently defined as a third sector with government and
business in American society, bring about change in a community' s social and
cultural institutions. Thus the focus of the interviews is twofold: discus
sion of the personal background and principles of memoirists, and reflections
on the founding and internal workings of specific volunteer organizations and
external issues they have faced.
Individual interviews in the series have been funded by the UC Berkeley
Foundation, the Chancellor's office, Friends of The Bancroft Library, and
colleagues and friends of specific memoirists.
The Regional Oral History Office was established to tape-record auto
biographical interviews with persons prominent in the history of California
and the West. The Office is under the administrative supervision of James D.
Hart, Director of The Bancroft Library.
Gabrielle Morris, Director
Volunteer Leadership
Oral History Series
Willa K. Baum, Department Head
Regional Oral History Office
30 June 1979
Regional Oral History Office
486 The Bancroft Library
University of California at Berkeley
iii
INTRODUCTION
When I first met Mrs. Allan Charles during the 1950s, she had
recently completed her presidency of the League of Women Voters, lectured
on community service at Mills College, and served as trustee of the Rosenberg
Foundation and Stanford University — all prestigious positions. She was called
in to advise a committee of the Junior League. In a constructive, open, and
incisive way, she got to the heart of the problem we were struggling with,
suggested some alternatives, and left us enthusiastically planning the
solution.
She was "Caroline" with us when that meeting was over, no longer a
legendary figure, but a friend, mentor, advisor and sponsor. Always willing
to tackle a difficult undertaking in community service, she provided
charismatic leadership to whatever project she engaged in — and engaged us
in.
Her activities have been diverse through the years. Hospitals, Planned
Parenthood, education at all levels, opera, theater, public television, public
libraries and commissions, and foundations have all captured her interest and
effort. Mrs. Charles says of herself, "I don't like being on the fringes.
I like to be centrally involved." This kind of significant leadership has
brought her to the presidency of almost every organization in which she has
participated.
It was when she established the Stanford Hospital Auxiliary in
San Francisco that I first witnessed her organizational skill and had the
opportunity to work closely with her. Mrs. Charles started the auxiliary
with a handful of women and built the group slowly. She carefully selected
her workers, matching each with a task for which she was suited, and
inspiring her with the need for this new activity. The early-morning
telephone calls were frequent, businesslike, and kept us moving along
vigorously. By-laws were developed, and extra services, such as the library
and gift cart, were provided for the patient. Suspicious hospital staff
saw what well-supervised volunteers could do to help them. And events were
planned which raised money for the hospital, but perhaps more importantly,
demonstrated community support.
Mrs. Charles brought to life an auxiliary that gave public visibility
to Stanford Hospital before its move to Palo Alto. One of the doctors remaining
in San Francisco at the now rudderless institution commented wryly, "We have
to keep the hospital open for the volunteers!"
iv
This was the first of several hospital auxiliaries that Caroline Charles
designed. Her recognition of individual capabilities, brought together in a
successful team effort, was repeated again and again. Social occasions were
held at her home to strengthen the network of working friendships. If the
party was an evening affair, husbands were included, and Mr. and Mrs. Charles
acted as gracious hosts. Caroline and Allan Charles have a rare mutual
support that has strengthened both of them in their careers. These pleasant
evenings demonstrated to us that community activities were a family affair,
not isolated from the rest of our lives. Many a husband left the Charles'
parties with a greater appreciation and understanding of the value of his
wife's activities outside the home.
Mrs. Charles was much in demand as a speaker, particularly on the importai
of volunteers. Young women with family responsibilties felt comfortable when
she would say, "There are times in our lives when we should not give as much
time to civic affairs as we would like." She spoke of the "giantesses," women
who had brought about vital changes to improve the quality of life in
San Francisco. She sprinkled her talks with anecdotes about her own family,
her husband and daughters. Her very personal manner of speaking made her
approachable, despite her great accomplishments. She sometimes mentioned
coming to Stanford from Stockton, California, to study mathematics — most
unusual for a woman in those days. She was one of Stanford's earliest woman
trustees and served in an era of great growth at the university.
Mrs. Charles has always been available to help in the community whenever
asked, and all manner of people and organizations sought her advice. Her netwc
of acquaintances is enormous and varied and based on trust. Her open manner ai
good judgment made every invitation to serve on her "team" a pleasant challen;
Because of her broad involvement in community affairs, she constantly found
new recruits and helped them learn how to work constructively with others.
Invited everywhere and knowing everyone, she seemed tireless because her
interests were always expanding to new issues, new involvement.
Mrs. Charles was always well groomed, handsomely dressed, and she
favored becoming hats. She could do business as easily with a bank president
as with a young dissident from Stanford or an irate tenant before the Housing
Authority. Accompanying her on some of her appointments, whether enlisting
support, seeking information, or fund-raising, was a learning experience
for a young volunteer.
We volunteers also learned by working on her committees. Mrs. Charles
was a superb chairperson, never officious, always gracious when listening
to all points of view. Her innate sense of timing helped her to close
debate when she sensed action could be taken. Through her example, we learned
the art of scheduling and preparing for meetings, and that being familiar with
the paperwork was an important part of the responsibility. We also found that
respecting relationships between the staff and the lay board was a key factor
for success in volunteer organizations.
I remember when I undertook a major volunteer assignment, her first
question was, "Do you have a good staff?" She knew that without competent
assistance, volunteer leadership would be difficult, perhaps an invitation
for the lay person to usurp the job of the professional staff. The citizen
in community organizations has a clearly defined role as the policymaker as
well as a beneficiary, but must learn not to meddle in the day-to-day direction
of an agency or its programs. Mrs. Charles understood the delicate balance
of staff-volunteer relationships, and taught us all to treat these relationships
with tact and respect.
Caroline Charles has always, been a reader of depth and variety, finding
refreshment in the appropriate book. Therefore, it is only natural that
cultural activities drew her lively interest. The annual University of San
Francisco Symposium, the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library, and the
American Conservatory Theater have all benefitted from her participation.
Henry Fairlie, a British writer living in the United States, wrote,
"America needs an aristocracy of age," a way for the young to undergo initiation
rites where the difference of generations can be a bridge, and enormous
friendships can develop by keeping the bridge firm on both sides. "Neither
thinks of crossing the bridge of generations, as both enjoy the bridge too
much."
Caroline Charles has been that bridge for so many of us, who have learned
to serve our communities better from her example. She has been teacher and
student, a trusted friend and wise leader, and an exceptional person who has
the courage to make a difference. Her oral history will be read eagerly and
thoughtfully as the story of someone who is truly part of the "action and
passion of her time." It is a great privilege to speak for the many who
admire and love this remarkable woman.
Leslie Luttgens
San Francisco, California
February 1979
vii
INTERVIEW HISTORY
If Caroline Moore Charles had chosen to pursue her undergraduate
work in math, she would undoubtedly have become president of Stanford
University or Crocker Bank. Instead, she turned her impressive talents
to community service where her intelligence, energy, and commanding
presence have provided strong leadership to some of the Bay Area's most
vital voluntary organizations from the lively 1940s well into the
turbulent 1970s.
In a series of wide-ranging interviews with The Bancroft Library's
Regional Oral History Office, Mrs. Charles shares the principles and
experiences of half a century of learning, teaching, and practicing the
fine art of volunteering as a board member, trustee, chairman, and president
of the League of Women Voters, World Affairs Council, Stanford University,
Rosenberg Foundation, American Conservatory Theater, San Francisco Housing
Authority, and KQED, among others. The resulting narrative reflects the
complex interrelationships within the non-profit community, through which
the social concerns of the Bay Area are expressed, as well as giving insights
into the internal workings of successful volunteer organizations.
Although Mrs. Charles shares the distaste of many for the term
"volunteerism," she is dedicated to the belief that it is vital not only
to the life of the community, but also to the personal satisfaction of
individuals. One's life is lacking, she insists, if one is not a part of
"the action and passion of one's time," quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, a
favorite author in her well-used library. Noting that Americans are often
hesitant to speak of religion directly, she sees a spiritual need to be aware
of and respond to the needs of others. As cities become more spread out and
impersonal, volunteer organizations provide an important way for people to
reach out to each other, in her view.
Mrs. Charles is a tall, handsome woman with a keen gaze and soft
gray-brown hair, always smartly groomed. As she talks, one is caught up in
her enthusiasm for the activities she describes.
In her introduction to this volume, Leslie Luttgens, herself a
distinguished corporate and civic leader, conveys well a sense of
adventure and accomplishment in working with Mrs. Charles. In the
memoir itself, some basic principles emerge that Mrs. Charles has applied
successfully to a variety of organizations.
Most important among these rules for successful volunteers
are: understand the needs of the people you work with, insure that
there is open communication between volunteers and board members, and that
viii
all of them participate, clearly define the roles of staff and volunteers,
be sure everyone is fully informed about the work at hand, and be willing to
try new ideas. "Match the skills of your people to the task you assign them
to," urges Mrs. Charles. "You're not here to agree with everyone," she
recalls telling a new board member. "You're here to be honest about what
you believe."
Although these ideas seem simple enough, it is clear that they take
considerable skill to practice effectively and that Mrs. Charles is an
expert. This is the consensus of fellow board members and staff of
organizations in which Mrs. Charles has been active, who were consulted
in preparing for these interviews. Among them are Ruth Chance, Dr. Linda
Clever, James Day, Morris Doyle, Leslie Luttgens, Howard Nemerovski,
Florette Pomeroy, and Dr. Lynn White. Their suggestions were helpful in
phrasing questions on specific organizations ranging from the Stanford
University board of trustees through the Rosenberg Foundation to public
television station KQED.
A total of thirteen interviews were recorded with Mrs. Charles. The
first three were taped in 1974 for a study of Bay Area foundations. They
focus on her twenty-five years as board member and president of the
Rosenberg Foundation and appear in volume V of that series, titled,
"Development and Dynamics of Volunteer Organizations."
The second set of ten recording sessions was made possible by a group
of friends and civic leaders to document other major aspects of Mrs. Charles'
work. The present volume includes all thirteen interviews.
The later sessions were recorded between September 19, 1977 and
March 30, 1978, in the Charles' home on Francisco Street in San Francisco.
These sessions were brief, usually less than an hour, because Mrs. Charles
was pacing herself carefully to overcome the effects of the stroke she
suffered in 1976. The illness had limited her activity, but not her
enthusiasm for discussing the workings of the volunteer community.
The transcript of the tapes was rough-edited in the Bancroft Library
and reviewed by Mrs. Charles. She made minor revisions, clarified questions
raised by the editor, and wrote a few additional passages which are
incorporated in the text. A modest person, Mrs. Charles has not kept
photographs of herself and her many activities. With the cooperation of
the San Francisco Examiner, however, the good, characteristic pose that
appears in the frontispiece was obtained.
Gabrielle Morris
Interviewer-Editor
April 1979
The Bancroft Library
Berkeley
March 1073
ix
Mrs. Allan E. Charles
850 Francisco Street
i>an Francisco, California 94109
Chain, ;an, Board of Directors, Bay Arva Educational TV - KOCD, San Francisco
Vice President, Board of Trustees, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Board of Directors, World Affairs Council of Nor thorn California, San Francis
Presidout, Rosenberg foundation, San Francisco
Vice r.-C'SidciiL, Board of Directors, California Theater Foundation (ACT)
Board of Directors, National Council on Alcoholism, San Francisco Council
Board of Directors, Auxiliary to San Francisco General Hospital
Honorary Member, Junior T,ra;^uc of San Francisco
Clubs:
Town and Country Club, San Francisco
Century Club, San Francisco
Formerly:
Lecturer in Community Service, Mills College 1949-59
President, League of Women Voters of San Francisco 1948-50
Member, Defense Advisory Comrn. on Women in the Services,
Washington, B.C. .961-64
Secretary, Advisory Board of Health, San Francisco 1958-64
President, Edgewood Orphanage 1960-64
President, Katherine Delmar Burke School, San Francisco 1965-69
Born: Caroline Moore, Stockton, California
Stockton High School, 1923; Stanford University, B.A. Mathematics, 1927.
Cap and Gown Honor Society, Stanford since 1926
President, Chi Omega Social Sorority, Stanford, 1927.
Married; Allan Earle Charles, Stanford B.A., 1925; J.D., 1927
(S.F. Law Firm - Lillick, Wheat, Adams and Charles)
Two daughters: Jean (Mrs. Andrew D'Annco) Stanford B.A., 1952
one daughter, four sons, San Francisco
Nini (Mrs. Michael McCone) Stanford, 1955
three sons: (San Francisco)
1. FAMILY AND CHILDHOOD
[Interview 1: 1 October 1974 ]##
Stockton Early Settlers
Morris: We'd like to start with the background of your own interest in
philanthropic and civic activities. When did you get started in this?
Charles: It certainly wasn't a family tradition, "by any means, because my
family — as you know, I was born in Stockton and so were my parents.
And their parents had come across the plains. They arrived in
Stockton in about 1850.
Morris: Did they? Right in the beginning of California statehood.
Charles: Yes, and also of Stockton.
My mother and father were extremely good people and extremely
fond of each other. There were four children, of whom I was the
eldest — three girls and finally a son.
I don't know how my parents managed not to make us feel
inadequate as persons, because they thought of the boy so much. We
used to hear it all the time, you know, about how they're going to
have a boy. I had two maiden aunts on my mother's side — her name
was Yardley — and they used to talk all the time about that boy that
was going to come. And yet, I don't think it ever affected me or my
two youngest sisters with a feeling that there was anything
inadequate about us. So something must have been more tactful than
they realized about that. I don't know that we want to go into this
too much, except to say that my mother hadn't even finished high
school. And that was because her mother was an invalid.
I don't know whether my grandmother was a real invalid, or
whether it was Just bearing an those children. She was still of
the generation where you Just had one child after another, and she
lost two or three children by death. I think a great many of those
women retreated into a kind of invalidism. It must have been to
protect themselves.
////This symbol indicates that a tape or a segment of a tape has begun
or ended. For a guide to the tapes see p. 304.
Morris : It must have been hard on them.
Charles: Yes, I think so. So my mother vas the oldest living girl. I think
there had "been another girl who had died some years before.
My mother was born in 1876, which always interested me as a
significant American date, you know. Then she left high school and
stayed home to run the household. She was a great deal like my
grandfather in temperament. He was a very dominating, tough man.
I didn't know him well. He was alive during my early years, but I
didn't have time to listen to him. I mean, he would have told us
all about coming across the plains and those early days if anybody
would have listened. That's the way children are, of course.
Mother, as I say, had stayed home from school and had become
the head of the household, really, as far as the domestic side of
it went, and my grandmother was just a silent, little, hunched woman
whom I remember very distinctly. She outlived my grandfather by
several years, but I can't even remember hearing her put two words
together, or talk at all.
My two maiden aunts, with whom she lived, were devoted to her,
and those two aunts continued their education. It was really my
Aunt Emma who decided that I should go to Stanford. I was a very
bright child, and Aunt Emma had heard of this college, you see, that
was Just starting. Of course, it was in 1923 that I went off to
college, and Stanford had started in 1891. Aunt Emma had always
sort of hoped she could go there, but it was not within the realm
of possibility, because it wasn't the way my grandfather would have
thought .
He didn't think that women needed an education?
I don't believe he would have thought of it. But the two aunts were
quite independent. My Aunt Emma was the more timid one of the two,
and Bess, who was the youngest, was the ornery one, who did as she
darned pleased anyway. She went to normal school. Remember that
word?
Morris: I do. I've wondered why teacher training was considered 'normal1
school.
Charles: I doubt if 'normal' had anything to do with normal as we think of it,
I don't know what it means, but Bess did take off and become a
schoolteacher; she went and taught. Her first teaching was in a
small town near Stockton. Banta was the name of it — a little, tiny
place. She lived in a household Just the way they did in the early
days, and ultimately came back into the Stockton school system.
Morris :
Charles:
Charles : But vhat I really wanted to say was that the idea of community work
was not something that either "branch of my family would have ever
thought of at all.
My father would never have thought of being a councilman, or
whatever you have, in Stockton. He Just didn't think that way, and
neither did my mother, really. But the thing that interests me,
looking back, and that I don't really understand, is that my mother's
family was very much closer to us in typical style. Mother's two
sisters, my aunts, and my grandmother were part of our daily lives.
My father's sister, Grace, lived in Stockton; she was married to a
man named Frank Viebrock. They had a son and a daughter. I never
knew my father's parents. They were not educated people. But it's
kind of interesting: they had very high standards of and respect
for education, which, of course, was true of the whole of America.
The feeling was that education was the way people were going to
improve themselves.
Everybody knew everybody in Stockton. Although my parents
didn't move in a social world in Stockton, they were considered
solid citizens of the town.
Aspirations and Attitudes
Charles: But it was Aunt Emma's inspiration that I should go to Stanford. I
had, you know, a straight A record in high school.
Morris: And you majored in math?
Charles: Math, yes.
Morris: That's pretty remarkable.
Charles: Not really, because I'm convinced that math is Just a gift. You
look at things mathematically, you understand how numbers relate to
each other, and so I never thought anything very much of being able
to do mathematics, because I Just knew how to do it.
Morris : Were there many women in the advanced math classes?
Charles: There were two other women; this is high school now, I'm talking
about — two other girls who were both good at mathematics, and with
both of them, too, it was a natural thing that they knew. One of
them got into Stanford at the same time I did. I don't know where
she is now; I haven't seen or even heard of her for years. The other
girl came from a very social family, a very beautiful girl, but there
Charles: was an element of irresponsibility in her nature , and I don't knov
vhere she went to college. She wasn't particularly interested in
going to Stanford. She might have gone down to UC. I really don't
remember what happened to her, either.
I remember an incident in a chemistry class, where I had a poor
young professor — I said 'poor' in the sense of pathetic; I used to
feel sorry for my teachers and professors if they didn't know how to
deal with women. A lot of them didn't you know. You Just had the
feeling they were completely at sea in dealing with a woman student,
and in this class he had us all go to the blackboard and gave us a
chemistry problem, which was an equation, and which I Just did. I
mean, it was, to me, very simple, and I finished it, and I turned my
back to the board.
This young man said: Miss Moore, if you would face the board
and do your problem, instead of trying to see what the other people
have done, it would be much better.
And I stepped aside, and my eyes filled with tears, of course,
and I said: But my problem is done.
He nearly died. Really, you know, I couldn't get angry at him,
because I realized that he Just had no idea how to treat a bright
woman student — maybe he knew better how to treat a young man. I
think he might have. But he saw that I had done it, and it was done
correctly, and he was really lost. He didn't know what to do.
In any case, I did apply to Stanford, and I can remember Just
praying that if I could get into Stanford, I would never ask for
anything else again. That would be, you know, the acme of everything
And so I was admitted and— •
Morris: It must have been a great satisfaction.
Charles: College made a great change in my life, of course. It isn't so
necessary now, but in those days it was particularly important for
a girl like me from a very limited experience and a really bourgeois
family.
My father loved to read, and read all the time, but he was
undiscriminating in his reading. My reading is not unlike that,
because I am a person who Just has to read all the time. There's
certain reading I have to do, and I always do, and then there's
some reading I Just do because I read rapidly. That all came, I'm
sure, from my father. So I don't need any speed-reading courses.
I learned that myself, and perhaps from observing him.
My mother adored my father, but I would get scolded, you know:
Caroline Moore, are you reading?
Charles: It vas the worst thing I could do. Then, vhen I got older and got
sassy, I'd say: Well, you don't say anything when Dad reads. You
just talk to me like that.
I mean, immediately [laughs] we got going thoroughly. I am very
grateful that she was a tough-minded lady, "because she didn't have
the education to cope with children, but she had the spirit and the
sense of decency, and it was a very good thing because I was a
terribly strong-minded girl.
None of my sisters were as strong and tough-minded as I was,
but all of us were part of the next generation. We were going to
break away, you know. But my sister Maureen — oh, I treated her so
terribly. She was my next sister, and she was only a year and a half
younger. The family would never have understood any of that as the
kind of sibling rivalry that became later Just a topic of common
conversation, you know. My mother thought I was the meanest person
she ever knew. I'd as soon knock Maureen down as look at her, because
I didn't want to be followed around everywhere; I was trailed every
where, even when I got a little older. Maureen Just wanted to do
everything I did. That's perfectly natural, but I didn't wish to be
accompanied by somebody every place I went.
Morris: That's also perfectly natural.
Charles: Oh, perfectly. But my father never entered these rows. He was a
darling man, and never allowed himself to get mixed up in a great
deal of the battling that went on in my family, because my mother and
my aunts were at swords' points most of the time — for no particular
reason, except as an exercise. I've always felt (and when I look
back at it, I made up my mind then, watching this) that I would never
allow myself or anybody else to live in that kind of climate , because
most of the fights were completely uncalled for — Just battles over
who said what, or anything. I think it was because there wasn't
enough to do in a small town like Stockton.
Even though there was nothing to do, nobody in my family got
involved in good works in the sense that women use their energies
for now, and did when I first came to San Francisco, too. I mean,
it was moving to the city that got me started.
2. STUDENT YEAES AT STANFORD
Freshman Traumas
Morris:
Charles :
When you got to Stanford, did this cause you to think about yourself
and vhat kind of goals you might have as an individual?
I don't know, because I didn't know myself at that point, really.
I didn't know what I was. I knew I was very bright and that I had
gotten into Stanford, which was quite an accomplishment. When I
walked into the dean of women's office and said I was Caroline Moore,
Miss Yost, who was the dean of women, said: Come girls. Here's
Caroline Moore. We've all got to have a look at her.
And I turned bright red, because I blush very easily. It turned
out that my Methodist minister had written that I was as pure as the
driven snow, and they wanted to see somebody like that. Now, I was
unsophisticated, so that I didn't know how funny that was. I knew
later that it was awfully funny, but at that time, I wasn't quite
sure how to take this attention. I really didn't know enough about
myself. It took me many years to find what I could do and couldn't
do and wanted to do. I didn't decide that in college, by any means.
But at Stanford I had several fortunate aspects of preparation
for what was going to happen. For instance, they had sororities
there, and I had no credentials. Nobody wrote a letter to a
sorority and asked that they look me up, because I just didn't know
people in Stockton who did that sort of thing.
Sororities never had a strong hold at Stanford and, of course,
as you know, they're eliminated now. Rushing took a whole year.
They went through several experiments at Stanford about how best to
deal with sororities. I should have started with this: there were
only five hundred vonen at Stanford. Mrs. Stanford had announced
right at the opening that she didn't really want women at Stanford.
Then, later, she Just simply announced as an edict, which she did
Charles: frequently — and vhich the then board of trustees accepted — that there
would be no more than five hundred women at Stanford.
By the time I got to Stanford in 1923, there must have "been about
two thousand men, maybe, and five hundred women. So it was a
marvelous experience for anybody, even as green a freshman as I was.
I mean, you just had all the attention you could possibly handle.
Morris: What fun!
Charles: Well, it was; except, as I say, I was just very unsophisticated. I
just didn't have what my own children would have, coming from a city
as they did, going to Stanford, too; although I am glad to say that
both my daughters are quite simple and realistic in their outlook on
life. They don't care much about social life, and they're both — I'm
a little bit prejudiced about them, I think.
Morris: Well, their mother should be.
Charles: [Laughs] In any case, I was not offended when I wasn't heavily
rushed by the Kappas and the Pi Phis and the sororities that were
generally considered the most important. Finally, somebody invited
me to come to the Chi Omegas, and I went, and that was nice; and they
asked me to Join, and that was nice. I was glad to have a chance to
Join — I had watched in Roble Hall the terrible, traumatic experiences
of some of the girls, who had come down with instructions from their
mothers that they were to Join the Kappas or Pi Phis, or else. And
it was Just a terrible tragedy.
I really have never forgotten about it , and I was very much in
favor of the sororities being removed when the time finally came
that they were. It seemed to me that it was hard enough to get into
Stanford, without having the feeling that you went through another
test, whose values you didn't understand, because you didn't know
why you would be chosen. I had no idea why, and I don't know yet
why, the Chi Omegas were nice enough to invite me to Join, because
I was still really a very unsophisticated kind of a young woman.
During the first two years I continued to be a very good student
and got lower division honors, as they called it, and then went into
math as my major, because in those years that's the way you did.
Your first two years were what they called 'lower division,' which
was general courses, and then you went into your major.
8
Allan Charles
Charles: By that time, I had met Allan Charles. I met him -when I was a
sophomore .
Morris: Did you?
Charles: He vas in my Italian class. It's hard to explain why either one of
us would show up in an Italian class, "but I was —
Morris: Were languages then the trauma that they are to many students in the
seventies?
Charles: I don't know exactly what you mean.
Morris: Many students nowadays have great difficulty with foreign languages,
and the expectations do not seem to be as high as they were a
generation ago.
Charles: Well, we had, neither Al nor I— well, I'm not speaking for him now;
I didn't even know him — but neither one of us had any aspirations as
to language, though I minored in French, because my mother had been
very anxious about that. She thought that any lady-like person should
speak French.
Well, we never had a teacher in all my years at Stanford who
spoke French, except Professor Anderson in the last year. Those
teachers at Stanford in those days were not real French people. They
were exactly the same kind of a teacher I'd had in high school, who'd
learned French somewhere and spoke, I imagine, with a terrible accent.
I would say very little French was taught or learned at any point. We
had, I think probably, a very poor language department at Stanford —
perhaps elsewhere, too.
Morris: Was Allan Charles involved in campus affairs?
Charles: No. Al was a senior, and I was a sophomore. He was about to go into
law. At Stanford, you took your four-year undergraduate and then two
years of lav to get a degree. Stanford happened to give a degree in
two years, whereas at Harvard it was three years.
The reason I mention that is because Al won a scholarship to
Harvard, and went off to Harvard for a year; but his mother was a
widow, and they were really not well-off as far as money was concerned,
He felt that he must come back to Stanford for his last year , when he
could get his J.D., which was what he did. So he did not stay and
graduate from Harvard Law School, in order to get one year ahead so
he could go to work, which was what he wanted to do, and get off of
his mother's financial obligations. So that's what he did.
Charles: I think Italian was Just — I don't knov. I must ask Al sometime why.
I don't know exactly why he went into that Italian class. I went
into it to fill in three units. I was taking some French, of course,
and math — always plenty of math — and maybe some chemistry. I don't
remember what I was taking. Well, we had all these required things.
You had very little extra units to fill.
But I elected to take Italian, and that class started out,
apparently, with the belief that it was going to be what they called
a 'pipe' course in those days, and so it was filled with football
players. Madame Staufe was the professor. She was a huge woman who
wore a cape, and she came dramatically into the class. And the first
thing she called the roll, and she called: Mr. Biagini; Mr. Prinsinzano
And then she got to the football players: Mr. Nee-vers (Ernie Nevers
was the big football player of that year); and it was a whole series,
practically the whole football team. Well, they disappeared in two
days, because Madame Staufe made it very clear that this was going to
be no easy course.
Morris: She was going to teach Italian.
Charles: Yes. And they weren't about to study Italian. They'd heard you
could get through without, and they all disappeared. You always had
the first week or two, you know, to withdraw from a class.
So Mr. Charles (Mr. Char-les) and Miss Moore were about the
only American names, so to speak, in the class, you see.
After about a week in the class, one of the older girls in my
sorority said to me: There's a man in your class who wants to take
you out to a dance, and I advise you to go.
I didn't like the girl who told me that much — and she said:
His name is Allan Charles, and he's a very distinguished person
around here. He's got a block S, he's a track man, and he's on the
men's council — and I don't know what all.
I said okay, I would go. The dance was at the Phi Psi house,
and it was a gathering of a very distinguished group of men who were
in an honor fraternity of some kind, you see.
Well, it was up the hill. Al came over for me and said: I
could have gotten a ride for us up the hill, but I thought we'd
rather walk.
I looked at my high-heeled shoes, which we were wearing in
those days, and I thought: This is it. I'll go out tonight, but
I'll never go out with a man like this again who has no more sense.
10
Charles : So we walked , and the roads were gravel , and it was a very uncomfortable
walk , and I tho ught anybody should have known better than that . In
any case, [laughs] we had some ups and downs and quarrels and one
thing or another, but eventually we were married a year after I
graduated. We were married in 1928.
Organizational Ability and Awards
Charles: As I got to be a senior, I realized that I had some organizational
abilities. I didn't know that about myself. I also realized — I
don't know that I enunciated this, but I realized that I was really
interested in people, with whom I had been very shy always in my
earlier life. I never felt secure, partly, I think, because of my
mother's timidity.
My mother really had no friends. She didn't know how to make
friends, because her dominant nature Just overcame — she had to
dominate friends just the way she did her family and children. And
it really made her — the only reason she didn't have a lonely life
was because we were related to half the town. So she had the security
that these were her cousins, but she had no life such as we all live
here, with friends to dinner; the only people we ever had to dinner
were cousins and relatives and that sort of thing. I may have
adopted some of that , but in college I began to see that I could get
some things done.
I was elected president of the sorority, and then I was elected
to Cap and Gown, which is the women's honor society, like Mortarboard.
I could not understand that. I didn't think that I deserved that.
I could not think what I'd done that made it necessary to elect me
to that, because they only elected ten women a year. I still don't
know, but I must have done something right there.
Anyway , that was nice .
Morris: Did that give you a feeling of confidence?
Charles: Well, somewhat. But I think I have to say for myself that I have
never gone around expecting honors. I never have; I've been totally
surprised. When I was invited on the board of trustees of Stanford,
I absolutely couldn't believe it. When I was invited on the Rosenberg
Foundation, I couldn't understand it. I think lots of people eat
their hearts out because they see something they want and don't know
how to get it. I have never conceived of myself that way.
11
Charles: Nfy upbringing made me a responsible person. When I said I was going
to do something, I've always done it and tried to do it better than
anybody else had ever done it, just because I think that's the way
you ought to do anything. I remember learning early in my community
life that you never have a second chance. If you were putting on a
party, or when I was president of the League of Women Voters, you had
to do your best with whatever the event was ; because when the event
was over, that was all. It was done. And that made a very great
impression on me very early in my community life. So that I always
felt that whatever I did, I would throw my whole self into it for the
time, because I wouldn't have a chance to change it if I didn't throw
in my whole self.
I never wanted to say: Well, if I'd really tried, I could have
done that. I didn't want to fool myself that way. So that I've been
fortunate in not expecting anything as far as honors or general
community respect are concerned.
Morris: It's been more the satisfaction of doing the job as best you can —
Charles: Of doing it. Yes. And then I'm pleased if I'm honored. That's nice,
although it embarrasses me a little bit. I don't like it as much.
I don't feel as comfortable about it as I do about doing the job.
I learned early, too, that sometimes you don't get honored for
the things you did do. You'll get honored for something else, and
something you did that you just killed yourself for, nobody even
knows about it. And that evens itself up, too. So that you don't
go around regretting that you didn't get honored for thus and so,
because you already got honored for thus and something else that you
didn't really deserve. [Laughs] So I don't have any regrets about
that sort of thing.
12
3. BEGINNING A COMMUNITY CAREER:
VOTERS, 1936-1950
SAN FRANCISCO LEAGUE OF WOMEN
Pros and Cons of Labor Issues
Morris: Was the League of Women Voters the first organization that you got
deeply involved in?
Charles: Well, not really. It was the one that brought me out of my domesticity
I'd say. It would have been about 1935, because I was married in '28
and I didn't feel comfortable about getting out of my house until both
my children were in school.
We didn't really have money enough for me to do much, because Al
started practice in his law firm in 1929, and the bottom fell out of
everything. It really didn't hurt us any, because we didn't have
anything. It's a marvelous thing. If you have nothing to lose, you
have no regrets. We didn't have anything. Al was earning seventy-
five dollars a month in the law office. Now, you know, they pay
everybody a thousand a month, no matter what they're doing, even the
office boy [laughs].
Well, even with inflation, we didn't get anything like that. We
started with seventy-five and maybe got up to a hundred. Absolutely
amazing. And, of course, we didn't suffer, because both our families
were well able to help us equip our little apartment in San Francisco
with anything we really needed — well , we lived in an extremely modest
way. Both Al and I have a lot of respect for living within your
means; we try very hard to do that. Neither of us places great value
on material things. We like things to be nice if we can afford them,
but I don't have to — I can remember Al's mother saying that she never
saw another young woman who could walk right by all the shops without
even stopping to look. At that time I didn't have any money to buy
any clothes, so why should I torture myself and so on?
Now, where was I?
13
Morris: You said that the League vas the first organization that you had
been —
Charles: Oh, yes. I had a friend from college days — she'd been a sorority
sister of mine, then was practicing as a woman doctor in San Francisco,
and her husband was a lawyer for the Longshoremen's Union and others
of the left wing.
Morris: They were Just getting warmed up, too.
Charles: Well, they were Just beginning those strikes, you see. That's when
they had those terrible strikes in San Francisco, very bloody water
front strikes, and my husband's firm was in admiralty law, on the
other side of everything. They represented all the shipping companies
and all of that .
I had never really thought about my politics, or what my attitudes
were. I just accepted being a middle-class, probably Republican,
person who just took things as they were; but Frances, my friend,
said to me: Look, Caroline, you've got to come into the League of
Women Voters because I need someone to argue against me.
She was in sympathy, you see, with the strikers, and she said:
There aren't enough conservatives in the League, and they need people
who are going to argue on the other side.
At that time I had lots of arguments coming from Al, who is much
more conservative than I am and has remained so, though he's been
marvelous to me in never striving to get me to accept his opinions .
Oh, every once in a while, he'll get himself in a very irritable
state when I'm on the other side, but mostly I've been quite amazed
at his ability to let me follow my own head.
The thing I really learned from that experience was what the
arguments were on the other side, which I didn't know — didn't know
anything about them. That was Harry Bridges, you see, who was the
longshoremen's leader, and those people. So it must have been between
'35 and '1+0.
Morris: I think the general strike was in 193^.
Charles: Well, then I must have known a little bit at that point, although I
didn't, really.
The first thing I really got into was the Campfire Girls.
Somebody had persuaded me to get on the board of the Campfire Girls .
Morris : As a Bluebird leader for your daughters?
14
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
No. And then, somebody was working on me to "be a Girl Scout leader,
and I did a little Girl Scout leading, "but that wasn't my dish of tea.
I really didn't enjoy it very much.
I worked in the League of Women Voters, you see, a long time
before I was elected president. I was elected president in 'U8, and
I was president from '1*8 to '50. I have always said, and I firmly
believe, that the greatest thing that happened to me — and, I think,
that could happen to any young person — was the opportunity to work
in the League. You learn a lot about the realities of life; I have
great respect for the San Francisco League .
I'm not at all sure that they were as far off to the left as
Frances thought they were. I suspect the group in which she was
working, that particular group, was probably composed of people whose
natural sympathy was with the striker, because I always found the
League was remarkably fair in presenting all sides. I certainly
learned how to be fair.
I've always had pleasure in my community work because I've
always had an instinct about being able to do what I do, and being
able to watch what I do all the time,
seeing the situation from the side.
That's pretty unusual, isn't it?
Not only am I acting , but I 'm
I think it is unusual. I didn't know that it was unusual, but one
time I mentioned about my memories of my childhood being so — composed
of that dual feeling of being in it, and yet observing how it was.
And somebody said to me that that isn't — I thought that was common,
and apparently it wasn't.
When I was asked to teach at Mills College, as I did for ten
years, Mrs. McLaughlin said to me: I told them that you could do
that, because you have the ability not only to do things, but to see
what you are doing.
I was pleased that she thought it was so. It makes things much
more interesting to me to see what the situation is , and to see how
each thing affects a total situation. I think it's been valuable to
me in the things that I have done.
15
Emma Mclaughlin
Charles: I met Mrs. Mclaughlin in a curious vay. We had moved several times,
and we ended up, vhen the children were about five and seven years
old, in a flat on Union Street that happened to be across the street
from Mrs. McLaughlin 's grandchildren.
Morris: Were they the same ages as your children?
Charles: Yes. And so I became very well acquainted with Jean Doolittle, who
was Mrs. Mclaughlin's only daughter. And in the meantime — as I said
in my introduction to -her memoir* — she and my husband became acquainted
because Ray Lyman Wilbur had asked Al to be on the board of the
Institute of Pacific Relations. Mrs. Mclaughlin was extremely active,
you see, in that group. So he knew her well, and he would come home
and say to me: This woman is remarkable.
She would also turn up across the street, visiting her daughter,
you see. So we got acquainted. Then I was beginning to do some work
in the League of Women Voters, and she was staunch, you know, just a
pillar of the League, and so our acquaintance developed that way.
Morris: Were there other women of your age that she befriended, as she did
you?
Charles: Oh, yes. She befriended a great many women of my contemporaries.
People adored Mrs. McLaughlin; she had a retinue of people who just
adored her. And they should, you know. She was tremendously good.
She was always interested in you. When she talked to you, you never
had that feeling she was wandering off mentally, thinking about
something else. She was interested in your problems. When she saw
you, she remembered the thing you'd said last time, or what the last
thing was that you were concerned with. I think all the young women
around her were anxious to be the primary one that she was really
interested in.
I had no idea that I was the primary one. I think I was
later people said to me — I remember Dorothy Rogers said: I
Mrs. McLaughlin felt about me the way she feels about you.
, because
wish
I was absolutely amazed about that. I've always been independent,
so that Mrs. McLaughlin 's and my conversations were really quite
*Emma Moffat McLaughlin. A Life in Community Service. Regional Oral
History Office, 1970.
16
Charles: interesting. She'd call me up at eight o'clock in the morning — that
was vhen she always made her phone calls. I've gotten into that habit
myself; otherwise you never get out of the house, if you spend all
morning on the phone and you have things to do. But she'd say to me:
Now, Caroline, I am very worried about — something the League was about
to undertake, or whatever it might be.
And I would say: Well, now, Mrs. Mclaughlin, I think that there1!
something that you may not know about this.
So then I would explain, and she would say suddenly: I'm dead
wrong. Okay. Let's go on to the next thing.
I mean, she really was a marvelous person.
And then her daughter Jean and I were good friends , because Jean
had no especial interest in these community things; except I shouldn't
perhaps, make that so definite, because Jean is such a good person,
but she had a very busy home life. She had three children, but her
husband was much more demanding than Al , in that he liked to go off
hunting, or he'd go up — he wanted Jean to go with him, you see, on
these things. So she really couldn't settle down to doing the kinds
of things those of us were whose husbands were fully occupied down
town or somewhere else during the day.
Jean and I are exactly the same age, too; we were both born in
October of 1905. So we felt kind of an affinity. Mrs. McLaughlin
adored her daughter and her grandchildren, but Jean's interests were
so different from her mother's, you see, that if she wanted to talk
about what was going on in the community or anything else, she would
call me or some of her other close friends. I think we suited each
other somehow, you know. She liked my independence, because I never
tried to please her. I just tried to do what I thought was right,
and we didn't ever have any differences because she respected that,
too — that need of doing your own thinking and doing what you could.
Of course, she was Just a tremendous example to all of us young
people , of courage and straight thinking and dignity and Just a whole
lot of qualities that we all really wanted to have. She always
dressed well and took great care of her appearance, so that no matter
how old she got, she always looked like somebody, you know.
Morris: Very distinguished?
Charles: Oh, yes, Very much so.
Morris: Did she ever tell you, or do you have any theories, about how she
managed to do the things she did? I know of her only through her
memoir, and how she kept up with all those organizations —
17
Charles: Because she had money. Her household was completely run and staffed.
She had no husband. Nobody could place any demands on her but herself,
but she conceived what she should do for her grandchildren and her
daughter.
Her domestic situation, you see, was completely taken care of by
her sister. She lived with her sister, Henrietta Moffat , and
Henrietta's province was the house and the hiring of the cooks and
the maids. They always had a couple of maids and a Chinese cook. So
that was one reason why she was completely free to do — and she used
to have a driver for her car. She had really started that right out
of college, I think. And, of course, her husband died when she was
very young.
Morris: They were only married a short time?
Charles: Yes, a very short time. Her money came from the family.
Morris: Her family?
Charles: Yes. Her family. When she got older, she worried about money, and
I used to talk to her very severely.
I would say: Mrs. Mclaughlin, you really must not be driving
your car — because I would have glimpsed her driving down the middle
of the street, talking, paying no attention. And she would say: Yes,
but then I'll just have to give up the car.
Then I said: But where's your driver? You always had a driver.
She said: Well, now, Caroline, I really can't afford that.
I said: Will you please tell me what you're talking about?
And she said: Well, I want to be able to leave my family
something.
I told her it wasn't necessary. Her daughter's husband was an
extremely successful man. There was no problem about money anywhere
in that family. But she did as many older people do, and began to
get conservative and keep herself a little bit tighter. But she
never was an extravagant person. She Just lived comfortably and was
able to do the things she wanted to do, like going to school every
summer.
18
Organizational Frustration ##
Morris: What vere the primary concerns of the League that you were involved
in?
Charles: I have to say that I think, in looking "back on it, that my interest —
I'm extremely interested in organization of anything. I knov how to
organize. I hate to see it sloppily done. So that, rather than my
interests being topical, I would be more likely to be looking at the
structure of the League and how it could be better operated.
Morris: When you were going on the board, and as president, wasn't the League
going through quite a reorganization statewide?
Charles: Oh — they were having a very hard time. They'd been slipping badly,
and Mrs. McLaughlin and I were worried. There was a woman who wanted
badly to be president of the League, and was elected president.
She was a pathetic figure, in a way. Both Mrs. McLaughlin and
I had that feeling about her, but she was such a bad organizer that
I didn't have patience with her. Mrs. McLaughlin did, being an older
woman looking at the situation.
This woman wouldn't permit anybody to help her. I would say to
her: Look, now, if you do this this way, it would (organizationally,
you see) be better.
She would say no.. And I finally realized that I was so frus
trated that I would have to get out of the League.
Mrs. McLaughlin called me up and she said:
the beach, and you talk to the waves.
Now, you go out to
She was really a great person. She wanted me to go out there,
if I was angry, and shout at the waves and not shout at anybody else,
because, of course, she had the long view, which was that it wouldn't
do anybody any good for me to try to destroy my — as it turned out —
predecessors.
But I thought, when I did resign, that I was losing all
opportunity to be president ; that was the one thing that I ever
really wanted — to be president of the League, which I must say was a
very modest wish, considering some of the other things that have
happened to me, which I never thought of at all; but I respected the
League, you know.
19
Charles: I thought I vould love to "be president. And I thought if I were Just
president, I would know how I would get more members, because the
League had fallen to a very low —
Morris: You mean the League in San Francisco?
Charles: Yes, the San Francisco League. To a low ebb in membership. And
there was no excuse for it, although we learned one thing, which I
think is very important, and which has been useful — a great many
things that I learned in the League have been useful to me in other
organizations. One was my perception that most organizations have
a level of membership which holds true for them pretty well.
Some organizations are not ever going to be big membership
organizations. For instance, San Francisco Planning and Urban
Renewal Association [SPUE] is like that. They demand of their
members a little more knowledge than Just Joining the Federation of
Women's clubs, or some of those, where they require little of you.
Of course, the League's particularly bad in that respect, in the
sense that they really expect you to work. So if you Join, you're
going to have to contribute something one way or another.
I have another philosophy — which I also learned from observation-
that in any organization you can name, it's a comparative handful of
people who do the work; it always is — who do the hard work of making
it run. I have never resented that. I have always been one of the
people doing the hard work, because I enjoy it — not because anybody
makes me do it , but because I like to do it .
So I was terribly frustrated that year. That was in '^7, I
think. But when my predecessor's year was over, the nominating
committee came to me and asked me if I would be president. And I
was thrilled, because I really hadn't expected — I really thought I
was lost as far as the League was concerned. I'd have to find some
other way to satisfy myself.
Morris: Now that's interesting. You thought that you had done as much as
you could in the League?
Charles: No. I thought, as much as I would be permitted to do — that's what I
meant. It would have been very awkward — how can I say that? I have
to be a little more specific about that, and I'm not sure that I've
examined the whole thing.
I had been working in the League from, I would say, 1936 to
19U8. I'd been in the League a long time, and I didn't think the
place for me was to go back again to the bottom and work my way up.
I thought I might belong to something else. But when I got off the
board, and resigned, I Just felt that I had —
20
Morris: You'd turned your bridges.
Charles: Yes. I'd left. See, I am a person vho — and it's evident vhen you
look at my history in organizations — when I'm through, I'm through.
Not in anger or anything else, but I think that dead hand of the past
is Just something that drives people crazy.
When I just got off the Rosenberg Foundation in January, I quit.
That vas it. I don't interfere with anything they do, and I really
don't want to know. If any of them want to tell me, I'm delighted
to hear, but I'm not hanging on, as lots of people do; my interests
are elsewhere. I've got a lot of other things to do.
I see now, looking back on it, that that was my general attitude
with the League. When I felt there was no place for me, I decided
I'd better get out and see what else I could do somewhere else, and
forget about the League. It was a terrible disappointment to me,
because I happen to enjoy doing only what involves the mind.
21
1*. VARIETIES OF COMMUNITY EFFORT
Volunteer Service: Motivation, Rewards, and Hazards
Charles: I can't get into these busy organizations, where you really aren't
thinking, you know. They Just drive me crazy.
Morris : The bandage-folding and benefit parties —
Charles: Yes. And, yet, as Mrs. Mclaughlin used to say when I got into the
business of organizing auxiliaries, which I'll tell you about in a
minute, she'd say to me: Well, I suppose you do need to provide
people with things to do.
I said I absolutely believe that.
My attitude toward volunteer work is not that it's the be-all
and end-all of life. There are a lot of people for whom it isn't
suited, and the whole business about whether you should be taking
somebody else's Job is to me not completely valid. I think it needs
further discussion.
But I do believe that people need the chance to do something
for others. I think part of what a human being needs is the chance
to go and serve in a hospital or in the slums or wherever it may be,
because we don't live a healthy life without that sense of having
really provided our talents to people who couldn't earn them, or
deserve them in any way. I believe this, very strongly.
Morris: Is an aspect of that that volunteer work quite often helps people
know themselves better and understand themselves?
Charles: Well, sometimes, you see, they may not even understand themselves.
I mean, there are a great many people who go through life without
ever understanding themselves. But I think it's the responsibility
of people who are more thoughtful and given to introspection to some
22
extent, and observation, as much as possible to make it easy for
people to live rewarding lives, even though they may not knov why
they do it, or what they do. Certainly, with all these auxiliaries
that I've organized and watched people participate in, there are
hundreds of people who Just feel completely themselves when they're
giving service in a hospital or somewhere else; but if you sat them
down and asked them why, they don't know why.
Morris: Mrs. Mclaughlin spoke of the auxiliaries as a new social tool. What
did she mean by that?
Charles: Yes. Well, one thing that made her interesting was this philosophical
bent in her mind. She observed what everybody did, and then put it
into a philosophical context. The way I happened to get into auxil
iaries in a major way was when I was elected to the Stanford Board of
Trustees, which was later, in 195^. Before I talk about that I'll go
back a bit.
I've often said to Leslie Luttgens, who is going through that
phase in her life now, that a lot of things happen all at once to
you, and you have to be sure you don't get unbalanced by it, because
society sees that you're liked by somebody and then they want you,
you know.
So you get a whole little spate of honors, so to speak, happening
to you.
Morris: And also demands for your time.
Charles: Well, demands, but those aren't so difficult to deal with as are the
honors that come, you know. They want you to be on important boards
and important things, and you have to be careful that you don't get
your head turned. That's what. You see, you have to keep your feet
and realize those things don't continue happening. They just
happened from about '1*8 to about ' 51* — it was a long period there.
Morris: After you had gone through the chairs in the League of Women Voters?
Charles: After I was elected president of the League, these things started to
happen, in 'U8. It was also in 'U8 that I was elected to the Rosenberg
Foundation. And I had been on the executive committee of the Community
Chest, where I don't think they'd ever had a woman before. Not very
many, anyway. Just one thing after another, in the seats of the
.mighty, so to speak.
I have too much Stockton in me to allow myself to become over
whelmed by this; I mean, I have to sit down and think: Who am I, and
what can I do to Justify all this? It was Just a series—really much
like Leslie has been asked to do this last year or two. But these
things don't last, and you have to have enough in you to keep you
going during the periods that they don't last.
23
Stanford Board of Trustees.
Charles: But, in any case, I got out of the League after two years as president
and, at some point along in there, I was elected honorary member of
the Junior League of San Francisco, and I was making speeches
constantly and advising the Junior League on various things. Then,
in 195^, I was absolutely astounded when Lloyd Dinkelspiel called
and asked if he could come call on me. I said: What would you call
on me for?
He said: Well, I just want to come see you.
And so I said: Well, I'll come down to your office. I don't
want you to have to come out here.
This was very typical of me to have done that. He didn't like
that much, but that's the way we left it.
Well, he was asking me to join the board of trustees of Stanford,
and I said: I can't. I mean, I don't understand this.
And he said: They would have my head if I didn't ask you.
You're the person in San Francisco who has accomplished the most, as
far as Stanford is concerned.
I had never really done any work to speak of in the Stanford
organizations themselves, though I think I had been on the Stanford
Alumni Board for a while.
Morris: I have been evolving a theory that a distinguished alumna in turn
sheds luster on the educational institution.
Charles: Well, I guess it goes both ways, you know. But I hadn't worked my
way up through Stanford channels, is what I mean. So that it
surprised me, because I knew there were a lot of people who'd done
a lot of legwork — but that isn't what they want on the board of
trustees. They want people who've had a wide experience, which I
was then, at that time, beginning to have.
Morris: Had they had a woman as a trustee?
Charles: Yes. They had one, May Goodan, whose brother is Norman Chandler.
They had elected May some ten years before, and they loved May because
she didn't interfere with anything; but she's a lovely woman, Just
lovely. She and I were great friends.
By not interfering, I mean May Just had a great deal of digni
fied restraint about the way she did things, but she had her opinions
and so forth. She was so kind to me when I came on that board.
24
Charles: Another woman came on the "board at the same time, because they were
expanding the "board to include some alumni trustees, whose terms
would be shorter.
I was elected for ten years, and the alumni trustee was elected
for five. There were five alumni trustees that they brought on. Well,
it didn't work at all. The alumni trustees became very resentful of
the fact that they were second class. They called themselves 'second
class trustees', which nobody meant, but the minute you gave them a
different term from anybody else, you practically guaranteed —
Morris: Did it make a difference in their status?
Charles: No. It didn't make any difference in how they were viewed. It made
a difference in how they viewed themselves, which, after all, is the
most important thing — self-esteem. They Just had a feeling that
somehow they'd been dragged in to represent the alumni and didn't
have the same position that the rest of us did who had been elected
directly.
So the board became very upset about that after a few years , and
it penetrated, and they changed the system, which now is a much better
system, where they are now actually nominated by the alumni associ
ation. At that time, they were elected by the board of trustees
itself, you see.
Morris: As a self-perpetuating —
Charles: Well, the board of trustees is self-perpetuating, but they didn't
release to anybody else the Job of selecting who the alumni trustees
would be. They would ask the alumni association to give them ten
names, and they would pick two or three from those ten, and they
would then come on for a short term rather than a long term. It was
guaranteed to cause trouble, and it did cause trouble. And now the
present system we have is very good. It really works well. We get
some fascinating young trustees as a result.
Morris: There were three of you women, then, at that time.
Charles: Yes, for a while. That's right. Then I was put on the nominating
committee several years later. Judge Homer Spence, who's now dead,
was the chairman of the nominating committee, and he said to me:
Caroline, I want to talk to you about something serious, and I want
you to pay attention to this. If you allow any one of these women
to go off the board without being replaced by a woman, you will never
get another woman on. The men don't want it. They don't know they
don't want it, but they don't want it.
25
Charles: Well, this is exactly what happened, because very shortly, one of the
women decided to go off. She was from Los Angeles. And the men said:
Now, you know we really need a man down there from Los Angeles. So
we really shouldn't get another woman.
Well, I didn't fight about that because I am not such a feminist
that I can't figure that we hadn't had awfully good luck with the
women that we'd gotten, and maybe we'd get a better man trustee.
But that's exactly what happened then; they never could make that
seat available to a woman again. They weren't willing to do it.
Homer knew what he was talking about, exactly.
Morris: Were you conscious, sitting on the board, that the men trustees didn't
pay that much attention to your ideas?
Charles: No. Because I don't permit myself to be on a board where they don't
pay attention to my ideas, and they soon realized that, and we've
always gotten along fine. I try to know what I'm talking about. All
this I learned in the League of Women Voters. For the first year or
two I didn't do much talking, but as soon as I found out what was
going on and where I thought certain things weren't taken into
consideration, I would speak up at the board, and the men listened to
me.
I've always had a happy relationship on that board, with all
those men. They don't always agree with me, but they respect me, and
I've been chairman of some of their most important committees. They
never had a woman chairman before, for anything. I've been treated
well by the men, and I never felt that it was a handicap to be a
woman on that board.
May Goodan and I were very different. I loved May dearly for
respecting my kind of a person, because she was not apt to get into
situations on the board unless she Just felt very strongly. Even
then, she'd be satisfied to Just say it and then forget it; but if •!
were dissatisfied with a situation, I would try to keep an eye on the
situation, and change it if I possibly could.
Morris: Keep working at it — ?
Charles: Keep working at it without making — one of the first rules on any
board, whether you're a man or a woman, is not to make yourself so
obnoxious that nobody wants to work with you. There's a way to keep
hammering at things in a perfectly good-natured, good-humored — good
humor is the whole secret of the thing. You can get quite a lot done
that way, if you don't have to be unpleasant about it.
26
Unifying Influence of Hospital Auxiliaries
Charles: So, as soon as I got on the board, Lloyd Dinkelspiel put me on a small
committee to see what was to be done about Stanford Hospital in San
Francisco, which was a great sore thumb around there. They wanted to
build a hospital down in Palo Alto on the campus, and a med school.
So, anyway, one of the things that I did was to help them form an
auxiliary at the hospital.
Morris: Here in San Francisco?
Charles: In San Francisco. That was really my first big organization job of
that sort. And, of course, it was so successful — we opened
like Venus, springing from the head of whoever 's head she sprang from,
complete with four hundred members the day we announced it.
I have some theories about organization, which bore fruit, which
was that I started with a small committee. I just said to them: For
six months, we're not announcing ourselves or anything. We could
keep enlarging this committee in a quiet way, bringing in other
people, but we're going to get our feet on the ground first, and find
out how an auxiliary can work — whether the doctors will allow them to
work — before we announce that we have this.
So by the time we announced that we had an auxiliary, we had
four hundred members, had places for all our volunteers. Leslie
Luttgens turned up in San Francisco just about that time, and became
my chairman of volunteers. So I knew, because she's a very well-
organized person, that that would be taken care of.
Morris: Had she had previous hospital auxiliary experience?
Charles: Well, her husband's a doctor. So she knew about hospitals and she'd
been in the League of Women Voters in Rochester. I think that's
where they came from.
No, I directed everything. I'm really terrible about things like
that. I mean, if I'm going to do it, then I've got to have it go the
way I think it ought to go, and be done the way I want it. And
Leslie was marvelous about working that way.
But then, you know, the minute you make a success of anything,
then you're Just in demand, and I was invited to organize this and
that and the other thing. My hardest problem then was to make sure
that they understood that I wasn't going to stay in it. I would
organize it for them, but they were going to have to carry on.
We have some successful things that came out of that and some
that have just limped along and never gotten anywhere.
27
Morris: Your primary interest in starting the auxiliary vas to develop a base
of support for a nev building?
Charles: No. The hospital in San Francisco and the medical school were in
such an unsettled state because the decision to move it had finally
been made (and although the men were doubtful, it proved to be a good
thing). This had upset the doctors — some of them — terribly, and
there was just this great pulling and hauling. The thing that seemed
to me needed to be done was to see if we could unify something in
that hospital — unify the doctors; you never had a meeting when they
weren't screaming and yelling.
Really, their behavior always amazed me. I suppose, being a
lawyer's wife, where you don't yell, you Just quietly get things done,
you know [laughs], it surprised me that the doctors didn't know any
of those elementary facts. I guess plenty of them do, but — oh, the
terrible anger over this thing. I thought if we could get the women
working together and giving help inside the hospital that it would be
just a healthy situation, and it proved to be entirely that.
The women all joined — I didn't separate doctors' wives from lay
people at all, which is much the best way to do it — and really had a
marvelous experience with that thing. And when the hospital finally
did move down to Palo Alto and when the Presbyterian church came in
to take over the buildings in San Francisco, they had that unified
body of volunteers. That's what kept it together for a little while.
There were those women, all working together for the good of the
hospital, and they accepted the change in —
Morris: From being Stanford Hospital to being Presbyterian Hospital.
Charles: Yes. Because they were working for the hospital. They weren't
concerned with all the rows and fights, and people didn't understand
that. But the thing that always really delighted me happened later.
They had a system whereby they sent out a ballot to the members, to
elect their officers; and about four years after I was president,
somebody called me and said: Would you be willing to allow your
name to go on the ballot as a member of the nominating committee?
That was the one committee that had choices; you voted for two
out of four, you see. And the others were all white ballot — just
somebody for president and a single slate. This person who asked me
said: Of course, Mrs. Charles, you'd just win hands down.
But nobody knew me any more, and I lost hands down. I loved
that. Oh, they hated to break that to me, and I said: Oh, I am so
happy — because I had, as I always do, gotten clear out of it when I
got out of it— clear out. I just went on to other things that I
wanted to do.
28
Charles: And nobody knew me, particularly, or cared whether I was in there or
not. There was a whole new group. Well, that's what you want. I
mean, things must go on, and you have to leave them so that they can
go on to being what they are.
Building Organizational Strength
Morris: Part of the problem of organizing is to develop a cadre of continuing
leadership?
Charles: Well, it is if you can. You can't always, and I have never put too
much stock iij it, because my observation is that leadership emerges,
really, if ifs going to, and if it doesn't, there's very little you
can do. You can get somebody to promise you that they'll be the next
president, and then they'll decide they don't want to be, or their
husband moves, or something happens. I've never put great emphasis
on that notion of selecting who's going to succeed.
My emphasis in organizing is the organizational strength in
itself — how many people you can structure on the way down as chairman
of subcommittees, to learn more about this, that, or the other thing.
That's where the survival is, down in the ranks. Really, you can
find leaders, and leaders are very uneven. You get a good one, you
get a weak one, but a good organization can survive that. They'll
have a year of a bad leader, and things '11 go bad, and then some
body '11 get an idea of who it ought to be, and they'll put somebody
in and it'll go.
So that I don't worry very much about that. I think of the
inner strength, of how you can get these people and give them some
thing to do, not always with an object of being the next president,
but being somebody who knows all about running the gift shop, or
supervising the volunteer's in various departments, or whatever the
needs are. You have to structure it so that there is a hierarchy of
people interested in each different aspect of it, and that's where
the strength is. I have always felt that.
I've never worried very much about the next president; the main
thing is to get out — I had a lovely young woman come to see me one
day, who was being forced out of her organization, which she had
founded. I said: Just get out gracefully.
Because it was ten years old. She'd been there too long.
Nobody — society won't tolerate you being in that long. And you'd
better get out yourself and not have people force you out, because
that's painful. You may be the best person in the world, but people
won't stand for it.
29
Morris: I have heard that theory expounded by other women whose leadership
in communuty organizations I admire. It doesn't seem to be generally
accepted in the political sphere.
Charles: No, it's not. And that's why you get, I think, so many difficulties
in this political sphere.
On the other hand, I believe that such things as a board of
trustees really can't profit with too short terms because there's
too much to learn about a university, for instance. You have to
absorb it; you can't go sit down and study it, because what you're
learning is how people behave in the board, how the professors act,
where the lines of power are. Those things you don't learn in a
minute, nor do you learn them by reading them somewhere. You learn
them by observing.
I've been very much in favor of the long terms on the Stanford
board. Now I'm completing my twentieth year, and I go out next year
because I'll be seventy and we do have, which we did not have — when I
came on the Staford board, there was no age limit, and you never saw
so many old men in your life as there were on that board. Of course,
they looked awfully old to me, because twenty years ago I was much
younger and would 've thought that somebody my age was fit to be pushed
off the cliff, you know.
But there is a limit, of course. Homer Spence spoke to me and
he said: Caroline, I'm going to be seventy this year, and I am going
to put in a new by-law because it affects me, and then nobody can say
that I didn't live up to it myself. He said: I wouldn't have been
able to do it before, because I wasn't seventy myself. But it forces
me off along with everybody else.
Well, the way we did that at Stanford was to agree that you
retire at seventy, but that any emeriti could always come to a meeting
and vote. Now, at first they did, but now we almost never see an
emeritus.
Morris: That's an interesting device.
Charles: Well, it eased the situation a bit. And a few people did continue
to come, but I don't intend to ever go after next year because I just
think things go better.
And I am always so busy. I expect to be very busy, as long as
I am alive and active. One thing I was saying to Leslie the other
day was that it really pays to keep certain things in your life
where you work at the lower level, rather than the top level, because
nobody can take that away from you.
30
Charles: With this bicentennial thing, I'm Just trying to help them get out
of an organizational situation that they've got to get out of. I
have declined to have any Job at all on the thing once we get it on
the road. Well, one of the young men, vho was here today, wants to
be the head. I'm delighted. He's not taking anything away from me
at all.
I'm kind of a dominating force in a committee, as I well know,
because I get impatient with people not facing the Job they have to
do and then figuring out how they're going to do it the best. So
that I am always working in a few things where I'm not the head of
it all, but sort of working in the vineyard for it. And with me, it
mostly takes the form of stepping into situations where people call
me and say: Will you help?
Morris : We hit a snag?
Charles: Yes. You know — something's wrong.
Morris: That's often called troubleshooting.
Charles: Yes. And then I go in and see what I can do to help them. Some
people you can't help [laughs], unfortunately. But you can't afford
to get to a place where your ego or something in you is dependent
upon important Jobs. Otherwise, there's no satisfaction in it,
really, because you don't fool yourself very long about that — that
you only like it because you happen to be the top person in it. The
main thing is, you must like it because you like doing that, and you
believe in the thing that you're doing.
Other Directions: The Housing Authority and Public Television
Charles: I have been willing to work in quite a variety of things because I
believe in the good health of the community, and that it's dependent
on community effort in many directions. Otherwise, you Just don't
have a democracy, and you won't have one very long if you don't have
citizen groups working in a variety of things. So I have done
things — for instance, I was on the housing authority, and ended up
being chairman of it. And I got off that to be chairman of KQED.
Now, I was put on the housing authority by political appointment ,
because the mayor, who was John Shelley at that time, decided he was
going to appoint me to something [laughs],
Morris: It was you he wanted?
31
Charles: Yes, that's right. And so he said to somebody: I vender if
Mrs. Charles vould be interested in the housing authority.
Well, I'm interested in any form of organization. I'm interested
in helping people as they need it and, of course, you'd never find a
place where they needed it more than in the housing authority. But
it had never been a particular field of mine and I didn't intend to
become an expert on housing, because I felt that my job — the staff is
expert on housing; my job is people.
That is the thing I've been learning ever since I got out of
college — hov to be most helpful to people, individuals, and to try to
perceive vhat their problems are and how the organizational situation
that relates to them either helps or prevents them in any form of
self-realization. I had a very interesting time in the housing
authority, enjoyed the experience.
I think, myself, that there's going to have to be another way to
house people who can't afford housing, because this scheme is defunct,
won't work. I don't know who's going to come up with a creative idea,
but there's going to have to be one. I d'idn't mean to leave a sinking
ship, but the fact is that after I got into KQED, about ten years ago,
on the board, I became interested in public television.
It really became very important to me to try to combat the
efforts to silence public television. And there were many, because
a great many people don't want the kind of thing that public tele
vision does in contrast to commercial television. I mean particularly
in freedom of political comment and that sort of thing.
We went through three years in Washington — two with the Nixon
administration — when I thought public television was dead. I mean,
I just thought we couldn't save it. If it hadn't been for Watergate,
we wouldn't have saved it. I think Nixon had really planned how he
was going to destroy it, and he would have been able to do it. There
were eight of us fighting that battle from all over the country. We'd
been pulled together (I won't go into that long story) — so that I have,
and had, more of a passion about freedom of information and the
necessity of it, and the fact that I see a role for myself in it,
than I have, for instance, about public housing — because I think it's
a necessity, but we don't know how to do it.
Now, why should these housing developments turn into slums
overnight? Society's Just got to face it — they're not really doing
what they think they're doing. They're really, by and large,
dangerous, dirty places for people to have to live. And the evident
reason is that the federal government doesn't appropriate enough for
maintenance. That lack was built into the original bill for public
housing, which guaranteed that no money would be appropriated for
32
Charles: maintenance. The "buildings would be built, and the rent would
provide the maintenance. But the rents were so low, that you
couldn't do it.
Aren't we getting close to our deadline? It's 12:25.
Morris: Yes. Just about there. The Foundation, then, was Just one of many
recognitions of your abilities that came to you at the same time.
Charles: That's very true. I apologize; you shouldn't have let me get so far
off.
Morris: That's quite all right. Your perceptions of these other activities
are very valuable .
33
5. EARLY EXPERIENCE ON THE ROSENBERG FOUNDATION BOARD
Charlie Elkus [Charles de Young Elkus, Sr. ]
Charles: I might say a few words about the Foundation.
It was Charlie Elkus who invited me to come onto the board of
the Foundation. I was then president of the League. I only knew
Charlie slightly. He was a lawyer, and my husband was a lawyer, and
he knew my husband quite well, though Al is much younger than Charlie.
Actually, Charlie Elkus had put Al on the Public Welfare Commission.
Charlie was a great power in San Francisco in many, many ways,
and he was the Foundation; I simply say that. He was the Foundation,
as I soon learned after I got onto the board. He was an extraordi
nary man; the whole town respected him. He was like all extraordinary
people. He was opinionated about the things he was opinionated about,
but he was a basically good person. You might not agree with his
opinion, but you had to agree with him as a fine, great man. Of
course, Leslie Ganyard was there as executive when I came in, and
Leslie had also been personally selected by Charlie, who, as you know,
drew the will for the establishing of the Foundation.
Morris: He had been Max Rosenberg's personal attorney?
Charles: Yes. Now, Ruth Chance thinks that the board was still in the process
of being enlarged when I came on, and I don't know about that.
Morris: It was already nine.*
•Rosenberg Foundation, 1937-19^6 lists five board members for 1936-1*0,
with Charles Elkus added in 1938. A sixth board member was added in
19Ul, a seventh in 19^3, and two more (to arrive at the final nine)
in 19U6. By 19^5, Louise Rosenberg Bransten was the only original
member remaining on the board, and the only relative of the founder.
Ed.
34
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
It vas nine people. It may have been eight, three years before. But
in my day it was nine, and that's the way we kept it.
In other words, it was already nine when you came on the board.
Yes, I believe so. The point is that we revised our by-laws quite
frequently to accommodate our opinions — [laughs] oh, I would say to
accommodate Charlie's opinions, because he was a very wise man and
knew exactly what he was doing.
What was it that he was opinionated about?
he thought should be done?
What was his view of what
For instance, he believed that when you gave money, you gave it to a
person, not to an organization. So that when you were asked for
money to support this or that activity, it behooved you to know who
was going to carry it out, because the activity could be worthwhile,
but without competent leadership it wouldn't work. And, so, that was
what we always looked for; and when Mrs. Ganyard brought in proposals,
we always were told who were the persons proposed to lead whatever
this particular thing might be.
I think Charlie was quite right about that. He was very firm
about that. He also had people up and down the state who he thought
were without fault and could always lead something successful. So
that the Foundation tended to view with great optimism any project
that was selected by somebody like, for instance, Karl Holton, who
was the head of the Youth Authority. Charlie just thought he was the
greatest man, and he was a fine man. Anything that came in under his
wing was something we really ought to do.
We had an interesting board at that time. I think all of them
had probably been hand-picked by Charlie. For instance, Ward
Mailliard was on. Now, you couldn't imagine a more different man
from Charlie Elkus. Ward was old San Francisco successful business
man and had many of the traits of a successful businessman — rather
arbitrary statements of this, that, and the other thing. Every now
and then he would propose something that wasn't strictly within our
limits, but Charlie would then recommend that we do that. Charlie
dominated the board, and none of us were prepared to really fight
with him, because there was nothing wrong with what he wanted to do
or not do, and he would make a concession.
We had a very strong Catholic on the board who was really very
close to the archdiocese. And occasionally we ran into problems
about proposals that were close to Catholic interests.
Morris: Would that have been Edward Parsons?
35
Charles: No — that was Bishop Parsons, of course. Parsons was the Episcopal
church. He was a grand old man, just a marvelous person with great —
well, as the Episcopalians do, he believed in society's dignity. It
wasn't like some of our preachers now, who go way off to the left in
their sympathies. That wouldn't have "been Bishop Parson's way, but
he still was very concerned with the human individual, and how things
would affect the individual, in whatever you did.
Who else was on the board?
Morris: Monroe Deutsch, from UC.
Charles: Yes. He was on for a while; and, of course, he was a great man.
Charlie really picked very important figures. I'm glad to have you
mention that, because I hadn't thought about that. But every board
member did represent something very important.
Morris: And there was Paul Edwards.
Charles: Yes. Paul, you see, had been president of the board of trustees at
Stanford. I think he was president at that time. He also was the
editor of the News. Each person in his own right was a very
distinguished person who had accomplished a great deal.
Morris: And Charlotte Mack.
Charles: Well, Charlotte was before me. I never knew Charlotte.
Morris: I see. She'd gone off the board by the time you went on.
Why don't we stop here for today?
Morris:
Charles:
[Interview 2: 16 October 1974]////
When we finished last time, we were talking about some of the people
on the board when you Joined the Rosenberg Foundation.
Just after I turned off the machine, you commented that it was
very interesting how the board worked together. That might be a good
place to start.
Well, looking back at that board, I don't think I had the slightest
idea at the time what a truly distinguished board it was. As I
mentioned, it was composed of the president of the Stanford board of
trustees, the provost of the University of California, several
distinguished businessmen, and Ellie Sloss, who was a Fleishhacker
and who is a perfectly lovely woman and a very unusual person.
36
Charles: We vere really in the company of the kind of lay people who I think
are needed to make community organizations work. And sometimes we
forget about that. I just wanted to say as a generalization that
I've become very uneasy when I see too many people who are profes
sionals in the social welfare business getting onto the boards of
directors of community organizations. I don't mean that I have any
prejudice against fine people who are professionals in that field,
but I think that the theory of lay boards really necessitates that
the board not be professionally involved in the thing that you're
doing; otherwise you don't get that kind of detached perspective on
the job that comes from people who really don't know anything about
it professionally or theoretically, but who are viewing society as
they see it, and with their ideas for improvement.
And that certainly was a distinguished board in that respect.
Development of Public Compassion
Charles: Also, in thinking of being invited to join the Rosenberg Foundation,
it was really the first taste I had had of any kind of organized
philanthropy. My family was (I think I used this before) a typical
bourgeois family, if we ever use that word in this country. They
were responsible, decent people, but neither my mother nor my father
had ever heard of such a thing, or thought of such a thing. In
those days, around 1915, you had some advanced people like
Mrs. Mclaughlin, for instance, who was already thinking about
philanthropy. But she, after all, lived in a city, while we lived
in Stockton, which was still a very small town.
I was thinking this morning that, in my lifetime, tremendous
changes have taken place in the attitudes of people toward the needs
of the underprivileged, as we now call them. You had a lot of private
compassion in those days. For instance, my mother always took in any
tramp (and we had tramps in those days) who came to the back door.
Mother always gave them a meal on the back porch and allowed them to
do something — if they wanted to — around the garden to earn it; my
father would have responded the same way whenever he had the oppor
tunity, because they were decent, kind people.
But the development of public compassion is the thing that I
think has been the great development of this century, almost. It
really began with the Roosevelt era — not Teddy, of course, but FDR —
because, in the first place, a great many people got hurt in that
depression who had thought they were secure. I think it was the
first time that a lot of people ever realized that being poor or out
of work was not your personal fault — could not be your fault — although
37
Charles: that was the conventional wisdom of the time — that it was always the
fault of this lazy fellow, even these tramps that came along that my
mother would help. You never did get into a discussion about it; my
parents just fed him and did what was necessary out of kindness.
Morris: Are you thinking, then, that the governmental statement of public
compassion through some of Roosevelt's legislation stimulated private
thinking?
Charles: Yes. I "think that while there had been private giving, and the
foundations had begun earlier — of course, the Rosenberg Foundation
had made its first grants in 1935 — they were hardly organized.
Morris: That's right; it was a very beginning thing.
Charles: Yes. I think the Roosevelt legislation stimulated a different kind
of thinking, which still isn't in the bones and blood of everybody,
but is much more widespread than ever before, I think, in the history
of the world. Certainly, in the history of the generations that
followed the Victorian Age, when the British — and the whole business-
industrial revolution is really what I'm thinking of — people really
viewed human beings (and have, I guess, since the beginning of the
world) as a tool for the successful person to use to make his own way.
I think the Rosenberg Foundation could be an example, among
others, of the change in thinking and an attempt, in an organized way,
to bring it about. I also think that a great balance is acquired
when the board of directors of such an institution is composed of
people who do not regularly think along those Victorian lines and act
on concern for other people — strangers. Their observation of what is
needed will be a little different and sometimes will be quite unusual
in seeing what could be done in ways that certain people, professionally-
trained in social welfare, hadn't even thought of, because we have
always thought of ourselves as an innovative foundation.
Prestigious Directors for a New Organization
Charles: Now, I did want to say something about Leslie Ganyard —
Morris: Yes, I hoped you would.
Charles: Because she was the director when I came on. And also I started to
say something about Charlie Elkus; and, of course, there was Louise
Rosenberg, whose last name I have forgotten —
Morris: Bransten.
38
Charles: Bransten. She was on, although I never saw her at a board meeting.
She was listed as one of the board. You may have a list there of
who the others were —
Morris: I do. Was she living in San Francisco at that time?
Charles: She moved to New York sometime along the way, but came out here
occasionally, because I remember, oddly enough, being invited to a
party at her house, not because of the Rosenberg Foundation at all,
but because of some political cause that she was supporting. I don't
remember how I happened to be invited.
In those days , it was quite unusual to find a great many blacks
at the party; it was what you would call a very liberal party. There
was nothing wrong with it at all, except that in those days it was
rather unusual to have a mixture of races and people of all kinds at
parties, and it made quite an impression on me.
Morris: How did she strike you as a person?
Charles: Oh, she seemed like a perfectly nice, liberal-minded person. I
remember somebody was playing the piano, and it was a gay evening.
I mean, nothing wrong with it — everybody was having a good time. And
I didn't get to know her at all.
Morris: Was there some question about her suitability as a Rosenberg board
member?
Charles: This was 'U8 and '1+9 and '50. I can't remember exactly what the
state of the country was in searching out Communists at that point,
but shortly after I came on the board we received word that we were
going to be investigated by the California un-American activities
committee.*
Morris: Hugh Burns was the chairman of it?
Charles: Yes, that's right.
The reason was partly for some of our grants in the Valley, but
also because they discovered Louise Rosenberg's name on the board of
directors.
"Joint legislative "Fact-finding Committee on Un-American Activities.'
39
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
So the board had a very serious discussion of this, and Charlie had
a solution for it which was, we felt, the proper thing to do. He
proposed that he go visit Louise or phone her — I don't remember
whether he did it by a visit — and explain to her that she never had
attended a board meeting for many, many years, and also frankly
explain to her that it was awkward for us, because of her acquaintance
with people who were thought politically questionable.
We felt that if she were a participating member of our board,
that might have been something else, but since she was really only
there for sentimental reasons as the sole surviving Rosenberg (she
was a niece of Max's)™
She objected, Charlie said, a little bit, when he later reported.
She did object, but she ultimately saw that it was the right thing to
do. So that was about all there was to that. We wrote off some
letters. Our board was simply marvelous about it. It didn't bother
anybody, really. We just answered anything anybody wanted to ask us.
Did the legislative committee take any action toward the Foundation?
Well, not about us, but they came into the office. They didn't
investigate each board member. I am sure they talked to whomever
was the staff person at the time, and I
Leslie or —
can't remember if it was
If it was 'U8 or 'U9, it would have been Leslie Ganyard.
Leslie. We were all in agreement that we would answer any questions
that anybody wanted to ask us in an absolutely straightforward way.
We didn't try to deny things if we had a bad press in — I don't think
we ever did in San Francisco, but we did down in the Valley; some of
the farm journals and one thing or another were making invidious
remarks about the Foundation.
We did what I think is what you have to do in those instances.
You have to examine what you're doing, and if it's creditable, and
you believe in it, then you have to continue doing it, and not get
in any peripheral arguments, because that's where you lose everything,
frankly. That's the way I've learned, from some of those experiences
that I've been involved in.
You really gain very little by getting into an argument. You
can hold your self-respect if you simply continue — examine what
you're doing, of course, and then do what you believe is right. Our
policy for so long had been the whole problem of dealing with
minorities and people underprivileged in our society, that we weren't
going to stop doing. There wasn't a single person on the board who
wanted us to. We've always had good board —
40
Morris: The Burns Committee, as such, didn't really alarm the Foundation?
Charles: Well, they didn't do anything. I think we may have been cited in
some of their meetings — mentioned — and I think we got listed somewhere.
maybe as a subversive organization. I'm not sure. We really have to
check that out and see; maybe Ruth Chance knows.
But, to go back to Charlie. He personally chose everyone on that
board. He watched the League of Women Voters like a hawk. When he
thought there was somebody promising, which was where I fell in — he
came and invited me to Join the board. When those things happen, you
never realize what a nice honor it is until you've had a chance to
taste it a little bit and see what you're into.
It was an extremely nice thing to have happen and, of course, the
distinguished composition of the board made it also a very pleasant
thing. He had also selected Leslie Ganyard from the League of Women
Voters, to be the first executive director.
Morris: Now, that's interesting — that he would draw a board member and a staff
person from the same organization.
Charles: Well, she was the staff person for the League. At the time he chose
her, she was employed as the League staff. You know, the League of
Women Voters was never heavily staffed, by any means, but you usually
had one person, and that's what Leslie was doing at that time.
Morris: For the state office?
Charles: No, I think it was for the San Francisco office. Yes, because Leslie
Ganyard had some very good friends, like Maude Button, and older
people; Mrs. McLaughlin knew Leslie quite well, had known her well
in her position as — but I could be corrected on that.
But Charlie chose her, and she was the perfect person for what
was needed for the Foundation at that time, because Leslie was a very
pragmatic, good-humored, compassionate person. A hard worker, who
went up and down the Valley looking for things. We had to ask people
to apply, because nobody knew who we were.
Morris: That, really, I think is the most striking fact, looking back from
the seventies.
Charles: Yes. It really is; when I was first there we even thought of a
couple of devices. In fact, I think it was more than several years
because it was after I was invited onto the Stanford Board of
Trustees in '5^.
41
Charles: We used to have a big joke, and I think I mentioned this earlier,
about how Stanford got its trustees from Rosenberg. Shortly after
Dick Guggenhime came on the Rosenberg board [1950], he was put on the
Stanford board. Then Farmer Fuller, who was only on our board for a
year or two [ 195^-1960] was elected to the Stanford board, too. Paul
Edwards, of course, was president of the board of trustees at Stanford.
Morris : At the same time he was —
Charles: Yes, I think so, at the same time.
Morris: Who was president of Stanford at that time?
Charles: Probably Wally Sterling; he came in in the early fifties.
Morris: How did Dr. Sterling come to think so highly of Rosenberg?
Charles: Well, only that I think it was Just something that he knew about, and
he knew we had a lot of board members in common with the Rosenberg
Foundation. And later, when Ruth Chance was brought in — when did she
come in?
Morris: 1958.
Charles: Yes. She was well-known at Stanford because she had been working
down there for Carl Spaeth. Well, Wally has always felt close to the
Rosenberg Foundation, I think.
Now, wait a minute. I had another train of thought I wanted to
follow.
Morris: Charlie Elkus had picked people all the way through the —
Charles: He hand-picked them, yes. When it was getting to be time for a new
board member, Charlie, in the end, really made the decision as to who
it should be. There never was any disagreement about it; he selected
very distinguished people. And for an infant foundation, he had the
kind of people on there who made it strong, because of their own
personal status, you know.
I once explained to a friend of mine, and horrified him a bit,
I think, my thesis that organizations have to have a pretty good
conception of themselves to know what kind of board members they
need at any given time. For instance, if you were going on the board
of the Rosenberg Foundation earlier than I did, much earlier, then
you needed people who brought distinction in themselves, because it
was so new that it helped for people to look at it and say: Well,
it has Ward Mailliard on it, and Paul Edwards, the provost at UC.
42
Morris: I've never heard of Mr. Mailliard in the philanthropic connection
before. I wonder how Charlie Elkus talked him into going on —
Charles: Well, because Charlie, I think, knew him as an individual and
respected his ability, both as representing old San Francisco and as
a successful and highly respected businessman. He Just didn't want
his boards filled up with do-gooders who weren't known for looking
cold-nosed — Ward Mailliard used to say about me that I was cold-nosed
(and that was a great compliment in his mind) because I examined any
requests that came before us without getting sentimental about what
the request was. I wanted to see whether it was financially viable
and all of that sort of thing, and I would question them.
I had a very interesting experience with Ward Mailliard, who was
a really fine man. He was a very close friend of Harold McKinnon's,
who was very close to the Catholic church here. It was a good thing,
of course, to have a Catholic on that board because being Jewish
money and having several Jewish members of the board and several
Protestant members, we might have tended not to have a Catholic
member on there; but we've tried consciously to continue to have a
member of each group.
Confronting Controversy:
KOEB
The Institute of Pacific Relations and
Charles: One day, we had an application for some funds for a Catholic priest
who was thought to be connected with men attacking, in the press and
anywhere else, people in San Francisco of some distinction as possible
Reds or Communists. The comments were very outspoken, and without any
basis. At the moment, they were attacking a man named Brayton Wilbur,
of whom I was very fond, as I am still of his widow and his family.
So at the board meeting, since I am always outspoken (perhaps
ought to be less so, but I guess I can't help it by now), I said:
This man, who's applying for this money, is the same man who has been
writing these articles and letters in the newspapers about people.
And I said: A very good example is Brayton Wilbur.
Brayton' s business was import-export from Asia, you see. These
were days where you were beginning — I've forgotten when it began.
Morris: There was the loyalty oath trouble at the University of California,
which came to a head in 1950 and '51. And in '52, there were the
Army-McCarthy hearings.
43
Charles: It was all part of the scene, wasn't it? But I said: I can't "bring
myself to give any money to a person who does this sort of thing
habitually.
So that afternoon, I had a phone call from Ward Mailliard, and
Ward said to me: Caroline, would you come over to my house for a
cocktail? I'm going to have the president of the University of San
Francisco over because I want you to talk to him about what you were
telling us today at the board. I think it's very important that he
know about it.
You know, that was really a marvelous thing for him to do. When
I got over to Ward's, here was Father — whose name I don't remember
now, but the president of the University of San Francisco at that time.
Ward was the kind of a man who knew everybody. He was really a lovely
man; he was unique.
So he said to me: Now, you tell Father about this man and what
he's been doing and your own attitudes toward him.
I did, and Father (whatever his name was at that time) said to
me: Mrs. Charles, I want to tell you something. We have a good
answer for our church member who's doing this sort of thing. If he's
going to charge guilt by association, he's going to have to include
me, because Brayton Wilbur and I are on the board of the Institute of
Pacific Relations together.
Morris: Was the Institute submitting this proposal?
Charles: No. No, no. The Institute of Pacific Relations was a group that
Ray Lyman Wilbur had started in order to further relationships
between the East — Asia — and the U.S. It became a target for attack
as to its complexion and was really terribly denigrated.
Morris : Whether or not it was Communist-connected?
Charles: Yes. It had had both some internal problems and external problems,
but when it was started it was one of the most distinguished boards
in San Francisco. Ray Lyman Wilbur had started it, and this Father
had a list of the early board members, and one of them was himself,
from the Institute, and another one was maybe Ward; I don't remember.
Now, whether that was the basis for Brayton Wilbur being
attacked — or maybe it was the World Affairs Council. See, the World
Affairs Council was an outgrowth of the Institute of Pacific Relations,
Morris: Ah, I wondered about that.
Charles: It was put together by Mrs. Mclaughlin and a whole group shortly — and
those dates, too, we have to get hold of.
44
Charles:
Morris :
Charles
Morris:
Charles
But, in any case, you know, it was a lovely meeting, and I m afraid
that the poor Catholic priest who had submitted this request was not
here very much longer. I mean, it seemed to me he disappeared from
the scene.
That's an interesting technique that Mr. Mailliard used— to bring _
together people who were concerned, but from different points of view,
to resolve a situation.
Oh, marvelous, yes. There was no question about it: he knew that I
had the facts with which to raise the issue and he also knew the
church wouldn't want that.
The Catholic church has been such a marvelous friend to me,
personally, and I think they've done such remarkable things in
liberal ways in the last twenty or thirty years, you know-
The Vorker priest' kind of approach?
Yes. Not only that, but the integration— when you go over to USF,
where I have an appointment at four o'clock this afternoon, you 11
find that the racial composition of their student body is probably
more responsive to affirmative action than any student body anywhei
around here. Maybe even more than San Francisco State; .
about it.
And also the priests that I know, who have been kind to me and
asked me to do things for them, are men of very concerned, humanitanar
outlook. So that I don't mean any reflection on the church at all,
and I never did, because this particular man who was doing this
attacking was just doing it on his own. And he did need to 1
silenced, I felt.
Thinking about that, I was thinking about my tendency (I've
always had it, and I'm sure I always will)— if something has to be
done that isn't pleasant, I feel that I had better do it because
couldn't ask somebody else to do something that has difficult over
tones for them. I felt that, in my own self-esteem, or whatever word
we might want to use, that was strong enough to stand whatever
repercussions there might be.
Just as in that instance: I didn't ask somebody else to raise
my points about this Father who was making the attack; .. felt that I
had to do it myself. Since that time, I have quite frequently, .
think, stepped out of line to defend something, and had people say
to me: Don't do that. I mean, you'll become a target— and all of
this sort of thing. That seems to inspire me to do it even more.
I'm not a martyr, you know, because that's never the way it affects
me but I do have the feeling that if these things have to be done,
you've got to be as willing to do them yourself, as to persuade
somebody else to do it.
45
Charles :
Morris: It sounds as if you operate on the theory that if there is an
unpleasant situation, it's better to move in and air it out early,
rather than let it ride and see if it'll solve itself.
Yes. I think that's a pretty good summary. I think I have a great
deal of confidence in the truth prevailing, but you can't do anything
about the truth prevailing if nobody knows what it is, nor can you do
anything about it if it isn't out in the open sufficiently for people
to see what issues are. So I have always tried to do that.
It's one reason why I'm involved now in the strike at KQED — of
course, I'd have to be, as chairman of the board. I realized when I
first took over that we were trying to operate the station with a
union contract in relation to engineering that simply wasn't tenable,
that I felt the previous administration had agreed to because they
were afraid of a strike.
Morris: I've heard that point.
Charles: Bill Osterhaus, for whom I have the greatest respect as manager, and
I both recognized that when this contract came up for renewal we were
going to have to take a position. And, do you know, the thing that
pleases me is that there hasn't been a single defection from the
board. Every board member realizes what the real issue is, because
the major part of the issue is that the kind of a contract that the
engineers want will make it impossible for us to hire any minorities
for six or eight years in the engineering department. And we're
under pressure from the federal government on equal opportunity; and
even if we weren't, we believe in it, because we can't Just say that
the minorities should have all the low jobs, and that everybody else
gets — so that's the very real issue that we're facing. But, in any
case, I always tend to get myself — and I'm glad my mother isn't alive
to shake her head about my tendencies. [Laughs]
Balance and Variety of Attitudes
Morris: Going back to Ward Mailliard a minute, I wonder if his knowledge of
the political scene — 'political' in the sense of how you get things
done — was an aspect of his effectiveness as a Rosenberg trustee.
Charles: Oh, I think so. It wasn't so much getting things done as being
sophisticated about what you might be getting into — if you had, for
instance, an issue that verged on the political. And Charlie Elkus
was extremely knowledgeable politically, too, in a very sophisticated
way.
46
Charles: It vasn't politics with Ward, so much, you know. His son, Bill, of
course, has, as you know just retired as congressman —
Morris: I believe Ward Mailliard was a leading member of finance committees
for various candidates.
Charles: Oh, yes. That's right. He would function politically that _ way.
That is, he himself would not be in office. This was the distinction
I was trying to make, yes. But , oh, yes , that's right . He exerted a
great influence as a Republican.
I don't know whether Charlie was a Republican or not. I wouldn't
be surprised if perhaps he was a Democrat, because Charlie would have
wanted to see that board completely balanced as to its attitudes.
Morris: Democrats were quite rare —
Charles: They were rare, and I'm not sure whether Charlie was or not, and we'd
have to find that out. Anyway, it's not very important. But, yes,
Ward's 'sophistication was a great addition to that board. And his
ability to move around among many different kinds of people and the
respect that he had, everywhere—he was a very respected businessman.
It was a really interesting mixture with Monroe Deutsch's academic
background and his concerns. It was a nice mixture to have them all
on there when the loyalty oath controversy came along. It gave a
point of observation with a mixed body of opinion. That is, . think
all of us would have been in sympathy with the resistance to the oath,
and certainly supported Deutsch's position. Nevertheless, it was
being discussed— here we were in a little group of eight or^nine of
us— in a milieu where each of us brought some different attitudes
toward it. It certainly was a learning process for me.
My whole life has been a learning process. And, you know, one
of the things that irritates me the most is that here I am having my
sixty-ninth birthday tomorrow, and I'm still having to learn and
reject things that I have thought one way about and realize that ^ some
new point of view has come along that I'm going to have to take into
consideration. I expect as long as I live that'll be true, because
I am convinced that your personality is simply the result of attitudes
toward things. That is, it doesn't stay the same way, because you
keep having to face different things, but your attitude makes you
face the thing you have to face in a similar way.
47
6. DEVELOPING GRANTING POLICIES
Leslie Ganyard, 19^8-1958
Morris: In those first years that you were on the Rosenberg board, vhat do
you recall as being the most interesting and challenging kinds of
program proposals for funding?
Charles: Well, Leslie Ganyard, of course, vas roving up and down the Valley,
and we were getting very interesting projects. She was certainly an
ideal person for the job at that time, because people always felt as
if they could talk to her. She was a very sophisticated kind of a
person in a way.
She had been a typical college girl. I think she certainly
belonged to Prytanean and may have been president of it at one time,
and was very active on the campus. Her personality was the result
and the continuation of the interests an 'eager college person would
have, you know — she became enthusiastic about things.
You know, one of the hardest things that an executive has to do
in any organization, but certainly in a foundation, is to see his or
her favorite projects rejected by the board, and this is very painful.
And it happens every board meeting, and should happen, because you
really don't want to operate an executive-run group. Many of the
very large foundations are almost exclusively operated by their staff,
because it's almost impossible for the boards to get to know that much
about anything. But we've always felt at the Rosenberg Foundation,
and taken pride in the fact , that we were able to learn about the
projects which we were asked to contribute to, to be able to make a
reasonable decision about it.
Morris: In those early days, up through the sixties, the board was able to
look at every single proposal that came in?
48
Charles: No, no. Never. And I should speak about that aspect of the way we
run our business. Our executive director screens the projects. So
it is true that you could have missed something. Later on, I think
after Ruth Chance came in, some of the "board suggested that we
receive a summary of all applications at the same time that we got
projects which had "been developed for our reading — usually, you know,
each project would maybe take six or seven pages of description,
written description, on it by the executive —
Morris: Of the applicant organization?
Charles: Oh, no. Well, yes, but the proposing person was asked to submit
everything they could on maybe a single page. There would have been
long interviews by our executive director.
We had a policy, which became tighter as time went on, and I
think correctly so, that those who wanted grants from Rosenberg
should not approach the Foundation through the board. A lot of people.
of course, think that's a shortcut for everything, but we didn't like
that then, and we all tried to avoid it; but it wasn't completely
adhered to until later on. I think we've done better with that later
on, after we were developed.
You see, all those years, we were developing policy, trying to
figure out how we worked and how we thought we ought to work. Of
course, with Charlie's absence, it changed. It became more of a
real board, in the sense that we all then participated in policy-making
We mostly bowed to Charlie's ideas, and correctly so. He was really
a great man.
Morris: You mentioned his belief that the board should have a strong concept
of itself and what it wanted to do. What was it that he felt, as the
leader of the board — ?
Charles: That's right. It was his belief that we should be doing innovative
work, probably in areas that were not conventional areas, and that we
know who was going to carry out the work. It was his belief that,
in the end, we were making the grant to that person, and that no
matter how good the idea was, if there wasn't somebody who was going
to make it work, it wouldn't work; and, of course, we've had that
proved many times. I think he was correct.
However, we never have insisted, and never did in those days,
that the person be named to us. That was one of the things the
executive was supposed to find out: did the group know who was going
to run this for them, and if so —
Morris: How did Leslie find out where to go up and down the Valley?
ask some personal acquaintances there?
Did she
Charles :
Morris:
49
Well, let me see if I can trace it down,
any memoirs of Leslie's.
It's too bad ve don't have
Yes.
you.
I'm trying to reconstruct her influence by asking people like
Charles: Yes. Leslie and I were good friends, but I can't say that I ever got
right down to brass tacks about exactly how she did it. I'm sure one
thing led to another. We would examine certain fields. For instance,
Charlie was deeply interested in Karl Holton and his juvenile Justice
programs thoughout the state. So she would follow those. I don't
know where the chief interest in the migrants came from.
Morris: Florence Wyckoff is a name that crops up —
Charles: Yes. Florence Wyckoff could well have been a contemporary of Leslie's
at UC. I think it might be a good plan to ask Florence.* She's very
bright. She's down in Watsonville; in fact, I may have her number
some place. She could, in a few words, give us some information about
Leslie.
Leslie was really a big woman on campus, as they used to say, and
she had many acquaintances. I think she just made use of all her
connections and information, once she ascertained the kind of thing
that Charlie was interested in the Foundation doing, which was
innovation, touching fields that perhaps hadn't even been touched
before, making little grants that might do somebody some good.
Health Care and Rural Communities
Charles: At that time, and still when I left the Foundation, we had for some
years taken the position that we wouldn't do medical grants, because
we felt there was a good deal of money available for such projects.
Well, you see, everything changed when all these federal programs
came in, with a lot of money to put into certain aspects of things,
such as health and medical care — or medical research, I guess, is
what I'd better use. We decided that we not only shouldn't be
spending our money that way because there was money available, but
also we didn't have the knowledge on our board to decide whether we
should be doing —
*See interview with Mrs. Vyckoff in this series,
50
Charles
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles
Morris:
Charles:
Charles :
Malcolm Watts, I think, was the first doctor who ever was put on our
board, and that was ten years ago, probably [1962-1971*] • Malcolm
was a great help to us. He was an ideal personality — never promoted
his own interests, but he would be able to select some little grant
for, for instance, diabetic children or something of that sort that
wasn't really research, because we wanted to stay out of the pure
research field and be dealing with human needs and how we could do
the most for them.
Health care, rather than basic research.
Well, yes. Or even identification. For instance, there was a great
concern about valley fever in the San Joaquin Valley; I don't know
whether anybody ever identified, really, what it was. When I got
this facial paralysis, which scared everybody to death, including me
(I didn't know what the future was, and neither did my doctors), one
of the things they wanted to try to find out was whether I might have
valley fever, since I came from the San Joaquin Valley. They never
found out what it was, but it was a very active thing.
I don't know where our papers are on that, but we did finance
some studies of valley fever, or whatever was affecting the children
of the migrants there —
That was the connection with children and youth.
That was the connection, yes. We were also interested in the educatior
and improvement of those migrant children. One very special interest
of Charlie Elkus's, which hardly ever came in to the Foundation, was
American Indians. When we made grants later to Indian groups, it was
not because they were Indians , but because of our old interest in
trying to accept applications that act on the welfare of neglected
areas, with a great deal of emphasis on our work down in the Valley,
but also in urban communities.
It seems as if there was more interest, or more grants made, in the
Valley and mountain communities in the fifties than there has been
in more recent years.
Oh, that's very true, yes.
Urban Pressures and Youth
This change just about coincided with the time that Ruth Chance came
in as executive director. I think you should read, if you haven't
read it, the introduction to last year's annual report [1973] of the
51
Charles: Rosenberg Foundation.* Have you seen that?
Morris: Yes.
Charles: The beginning of it was a collaboration of Ruth's and mine. She wrote
it and I edited it. Between us, we finally turned it into what we
wanted. It's a pretty good description of the change of emphasis
toward concern with the urban scene, which was, of course, moving
very rapidly. When you really take a look at it, which I hadn't
thought about before, the fact that more and more young people were
trying to come to the -cities and leaving the country — this has been
a long, traditional transition of American life. I shouldn't even
say American life; I guess the Romans were talking about it.
Morris: Really?
Charles: Oh, yes. There are some marvelous Latin comments on why people want
to get to the city. I can't quote them for you now, and I maybe can't
even find them, but it's been a historic way for young people to move.
We began to feel, under Ruth's direction — Ruth brought a great
many things to our attention that really were marvelous — that the
needs of these people crowded into cities, not only kids on their own,
but families that think they're coming to the promised land and really
can't even find a way to live — that we should put more and more
emphasis on that.
Morris: That annual report points out that the roots of the Foundation's
interest and support do go way back to the transient youth study that
was commissioned by the Governor's Advisory Committee on Children and
Youth in the forties.
Charles: Oh, yes. That's right. One of the most amazing things that we have
done is that we were a great source of funds for these state-wide
studi es .
There was no other foundation for anybody to go to but Rosenberg
for these things. The other foundations were primarily proprietary
in the sense that they were family-oriented foundations; they really
didn't want to do anything unconventional. The San Francisco
Foundation wasn't organized til 'U8; we helped them get started, you
know. I always tease them about that because now, of course, they've
got a lot more money than we do.
*See appendix, p. 115.
52
Charles: And so, when people wanted to make studies on abortion or transient
youth or any of the things that nobody really wanted to talk about
very much in the 19^0s, they would come to us, and we would fund it.
Morris: Did the board discuss at all the implications of a private foundation
making grants to the state government?
Charles: Yes. We often discussed that. We've often talked about making grants
to the city, which we have done. Actually, one of our newest policies
was that we were probably not going to continue funding, say, the
education establishment.
va
Charles: We thought perhaps some of the more innovative ideas might be going
to have to come from organizations working on the fringes of education,
rather than —
Morris: Outside of institutions?
Charles: Yes. Outside of the traditional institutions, and so we put money
into that.
Invited Applications and Obese Budgets
Charles: One thing I started to say earlier was that at one point — I would
imagine it was in the middle fifties — we were still trying to invite
the kind of applications that we wanted. It seems incredible now,
because we're so swamped.
We were trying to think of ways to invite applications that would
be creative and unusual, and we decided to invite each of the colleges
around here to create an application for us in something they thought
was important. I believe it was in the field of education, and we
were terribly disappointed in that. It taught us a good lesson, which
is that you can't stimulate creativity. It just has to be there
before it can come to you in any kind of viable form. We were very
disappointed. We decided that we probably would not try that again.
As it turned out, we really didn't need to, because applications
began increasing spontaneously.
Morris: There were, over the years, it seems to me, a number of different
approaches to the emotional problems of youngsters.
Charles : Yes .
53
Morris: Now, was this something that emerged with the years, or were there
people on the board who felt this was particularly important?
Charles: No, I really have to say that I believe that when we leave Charlie's
era (because Charlie had ideas of his own about where he thought the
emphasis ought to be) — as we emerged from that era, we became
increasingly — I don't really think the word 'dependent' is quite
right, although it's partly right — dependent on our staff director to
bring us the most forward-looking things that she thought (it was "she1
since it would apply both to Leslie and Ruth) were where we ought to
be putting our money, our hopes of developing cures for things or
extending good ideas, that sort of thing.
Ruth, of course, has put a tremendous mark, all to the good, on
the Foundation. She's a little different type of person than Leslie
Ganyard, and she was exactly the kind of person that we needed. Ruth
is an intellectual and a philosopher, and Leslie Ganyard was a more
practical, down-to-earth person. Both of them are extremely compas
sionate and at the same time hard-headed, or cold -nosed, or whatever
we want to call it, about their review of applications. They didn't
let anybody come in with phony aspects to whatever it is. They Just
got everybody right down to brass tacks. Of course, Ruth scares
people to death, always has, among her applicants. They have to go
back and keep thinning out their desires more and more, and that's
good exercise for them.
Morris: For the grantee.
Charles : For the grantee , yes .
Morris: Working with a foundation executive, preliminary to submitting a
proposal, sharpens up the applicant's perception?
Charles: Oh, my, yes. And also sharpens up their consciences as to what they
really need to do their Job, and how they can do it in the most
economical and effective way. Nobody's trying to prevent them from
being effective, but you get a lot of fat in a lot of these proposals.
Ruth Just recognized it in a minute. Most of the good foundations'
executives try very hard to do that.
I was speaking to a group Just two or three weeks ago about
funding, and I became argumentative with one young woman who said:
Well, if you apply to the federal government, you want to make it
double what you really need.
And I said: Well, in my view, that hurts you more than it does
anybody else, because then you don't force yourself to ask for
exactly what you know you need, rather than gambling on it being
reduced somewhere along the line, irrationally.
Charles: Perhaps the federal government — we know that these grants have been,
some of them, very loosely given, and administered, too. We all have
examples of that sort of thing. Of course, a small foundation like
ours simply cannot afford to have its money being spent lavishly or
without due consideration.
1950s: Interagency Approach to Multi-Problem Families
Morris: When I mentioned emotionally disturbed children, I was thinking of
that 1955-7 grant in San Mateo County, done by Community Research
Associates. It was an interagency approach to the multi-problem
family, and later there was some continuation in San Francisco.
Charles: Oh, yes. That's right.
Morris: I believe they had done an evaluation study of the Foundation; their
report is called "New Adventures in Foundation Giving."*
Charles: Well, they might have. Within the Foundation, that San Mateo project
was a very controversial thing. The only thing that carried it was
that Charlie was still alive; do you know when he died?
Morris: The early 1960s, because he was still president when Ruth Chance came
to the Foundation.
Charles: Yes. That's exactly right. Well, Charlie became very enamored of
that idea and Roy Sorenson, who had come on the board — and do you
have the date when Roy came on?
Morris : I have him there in 1951 •
Charles: Oh, was it that early? That surprises me.
Morris: Wasn't he a consultant to Community Research Associates?
Charles: Yes, he was. That's right. It all tied up together, because Charlie
and Roy sort of worked out the details of putting an enormous amount
of money in this thing — for us, an enormous amount. It was a four-
year commitment —
Morris: Over a half a million dollars.
*"New Adventures in Foundation Giving," Community Research Associates
Inc., Rosenberg Foundation, San Francisco, California, 1951.
55
Charles: Yes, exactly. It was about a hundred thousand a year, if not a little
more. This was not what the "board was used to, and we were quite
uneasy about it. I think Ruth was there, though, when that happened.
Morris: She came in in the middle, before a grant was made for a modified
version of the plan in the San Francisco Welfare Department.
Charles: Well, Leslie Ganyard was uneasy about it, too. As a matter of fact,
it really only confirmed our feeling (I use the word collectively,
of the Foundation board) that our most effective grants were small
ones, because we put a lot of money into this. It was a theory about
all — or let's say ninety-five percent — of the welfare problems coming
from twenty or fifteen percent of the people, and that if we put
enough money into it, this Community Research Associates group could
identify who these families were, and thereby reduce — because we also
knew at that time that people, if it was a whole family, were apt to
go to a number of different places to get help, so that they accumu
lated — of course , none of them ever accumulated enough to do themselves
any good. But that was an unsatisfying experience for all of us.
Morris: Was it primarily the high cost of it that made people uneasy?
Charles: Well, we didn't like the cost, but what bothered us was that we
couldn't see anything coming out of it. A lot of theory and research.
We are used, and have always been used, to measuring our grants in
the concrete, humanitarian results that we get, and also the infor
mation they bring to make it possible for other people to do the same
thing in other places.
Lots of our grants have resulted in publications, little
pamphlets, that tell people how to do things; they can be used all
over the country. I think that we valued our contribution more when
it was that kind of result, than we did in a major scientific study
of something. We Just didn't think that was our function, and we
also didn't think that we had the money to do that sort of thing.
You know, that took so much of what we had to grant that it cut
down very much on little things that would come in. Some of the best
grants we have made have been five thousand, ten thousand dollars for
some thing to be completed, or to be done in a peripheral way.
Individuals in Need Vs. Broad Social Theory
Morris: In other reading I have done, Just after World War II there seems to
have been quite a lot of interest in the business community in taking
a scientific look at planning and doing long-range studies. Did any
of the businessmen on the board talk about this point and were they
for or against it?
56
Charles: The interesting thing to me, if I vere to make a generalization about
"businessmen on the board, would be that their primary interests vere
almost uniformly in the effect on individuals that our grants would
have, not in philosophical ways of going at it. That would be more
the social worker's idea, you see: how you could look at it broadly.
Businessmen might look at business that way, but the satisfaction
they get, and got, from being on the Rosenberg board was being able to
think of individuals they had helped and that that method could be
used elsewhere; that would be satisfying.
They wouldn't want to do a study, I don't believe, that separated
them from the realities of human distress and how to alleviate it. In
a way, I think that most businessmen that I know in most of my organi
zations and boards infinitely prefer seeing the results of what they
do right there before them, seeing that you've helped somebody. And
the desire to do it is not inspired by big, broad efforts.
Morris: World view kind of thing.
Charles: Yes. Or even community views. It's inspired by the fact that here's
a little group of people that Just can't make it. If something we
did could help them, and not be Just temporary help, but give them
fundamental help, I think this is where you would get your best
support .
Morris: In other words, in general, businessmen respond to the contrasts in
the kinds of things the Foundation is doing, the way they're different
from the way a business runs.
Charles: Exactly. I think so. They want —
Morris: There isn't much feedback between business and philanthropy?
Charles: Yes. I would make that statement in this way: what they respond to
is the personal satisfaction of philanthropy. Businessmen, of course,
are very valuable on the Rosenberg board because they have high
standards of fiscal responsibility, and this you need; we need to
have that in everything we do, and they're very good at that. But
they don't get the personal satisfaction from that.
I think, when you're working in philanthropy, if you aren't
getting some personal satisfaction from what you do, those hours are
very wasted, because what else do you get? You don't get anything
else. And unless you can say with some pride that you did this, that
or the other thing, it's not worth it to you.
For instance, Ward Mailliard was extremely interested in the
Audubon Society and his family had long-time Marin County connections
I suspect that we financed a number of bird sanctuaries and retreats
over in Marin County. I can't remember exactly when or which ones
57
Charles: they were (we'd have to ask Ruth about that), "but when Ward would come
in with one of his Audubon proposals , you really could not fit it into
the type of thing we thought we were doing, which was really welfare,
you see. And that is in the most limited sense — the sense of improving
the human condition, which, of course, is what we want to do. But we
didn't think of it as is now very common, in the ecological way of
preserving the environment, that sort of thing.
Morris: Environmental projects as such are still out of Rosenberg's territory?
Charles: Yes. What we could Justify would be, for instance, if the Audubon
Society were going to run a school where children could learn more
about birds, or whatever it might be.
Morris: I think of the blue heron ranch up there, that so many school groups
visit.
Charles: Well, that's right. But it sort of snuck in under the rails, you
know. It really wasn't exactly what we thought we were for, nor
what Charlie thought; but Charlie was very fond of Ward, and if Ward
came in with this — and he knew of Ward's great affection for Audubon —
we would all sort of smile when that came along. We knew we were
going to do it, although we might have a hard time fitting into the
idea of what we thought, generally, that we were doing. And, of
course, we should. Those are all part of the human condition — very
necessary to a well-rounded human life; but we were looking at it a
little differently then.
Evaluating Grant Results
Charles: I think one of the things that might be interesting to do — and maybe
before you and I have our next session I ought to sit down with Ruth
and talk about it — is to see whether our deviations from policy in
Foundation grants have actually become a pattern. We've gone into
the cultural world and the ecological world, and all of these other
things that were more remote to what we thought was our major
preoccupation in those early days, which was really education and
welfare, I would say.
Now, we took it as being to the welfare of young children — as
you know, our purpose was always that (and I don't know that we used
the word 'young') children and youth — and we've stuck with that, but
our emphasis has changed from time to time. Some of the things that
have been dragged in by the heels to fit that have been exceedingly
worthwhile things to do. They would tell you something if we would
have the patience to look at them.
58
Charles: For instance, we had this proposition from a young fellow, a teacher,
who was, I presume, at the end of his wits as to how to interest a
class of boys — maybe boys and girls — Just in plain, old , studying and
learning. And they were difficult children. He didn't know what to
do. I don't know whether he, himself, was a flyer or whether he had
friends over in the little flying school over there. Well, he worked
out a scheme whereby these children who had done well in their work
that week were then taken on a plane flight every Friday, or something
of the sort. Well, of course, it Just worked like a charm. Everything
they did was attached, I presume, as best they could, to the whole idea
of flying and instruction.
Well, it was an expensive thing for us to do, but we were all very
taken with it because we saw that it gave that little impulse —
Morris: The carrot rather than the stick.
Charles: Yes. I think maybe one of the things we ought to do in the Foundation
if anybody had time, would be to try to analyze some of these off-beat
things that we did, to get some generalizations that might —
Morris: That's a fascinating idea. In reading through your annual reports, I
have wondered what happens to the results , in terms of the Foundation
cumulative record and also in terms of disseminating information to
others working in the same grant field.
Charles: We've had very bad luck in trying to assess our old grants. We've
hired people to do it, and we've tried to review them, and it's a
very, very hard thing to do. A great deal depends on the person who's
doing the reviewing. A great deal depends on what our original
intention was, and if that didn't work out, what did come out of it.
It takes some imagination to analyze. I think, as a matter of
fact, this isn't the only organization that I've worked in where it
seems impossible to make any assessment of whether you've done
anything good or not. I was president for some years of the Edgewood
orphanage, which is not an orphanage, but actually a home for disturbe
children.
Morris: That's an interesting evolution, too.
Charles: It had to be, because, you see, there aren't many orphans any more;
what you're getting are single-parent kids and that sort of thing.
We tried a number of experiments over the years, after we quit the
traditional one of simply making ourselves available to the government
that was what a lot of these orphanages did when they began running
out of orphans — they made themselves available to other agencies.
Morris: To the county placement services?
59
Charles: Yes. Then the county wouldn't pay you the cost, even though it was
less than their own costs in their own buildings. They would set the
fees by legislative action. Well, we don't want to get into all that.
Anyway, at Edgewood we did our level best to evaluate whether a
new program was working or not. I was talking to them the other day,
and they were Just shaking their heads at how very difficult it is.
It requires actual following up of people, and I don't know whether
you can do it in less than ten or fifteen years, you know. It may be
that you won't know whether you did any good if you don't —
Morris: It could be that you might be able to posit, 'in five years we had thus
and so kind of results',' and then maybe — the problem always is the
follow-up. Who's going to bring it up ten years later?
Charles: And who's going to find those people? The kind of people we're talking
about there? Probably in many of our Rosenberg projects are people
who are not easy to find. They're people who move a great deal. I
really think we could learn something about ourselves that would be
very valuable to us if we took a look at our grants over the years,
not so much to see how much glory they reflected on the Foundation,
but to see whether anything really innovative had developed that could
be made use of elsewhere that was overlooked at the time. I don't
think we've taken a look in quite that way.
That's a very hard thing to do, because times change, and the
areas where society needs help change, and you have to meet those
needs as they come along. It may be that what you did twenty years
ago — it's probably quite true — wouldn't apply at the present time.
So maybe it would be a lot of wasted energy. Maybe you just have to
continue moving forward in as creative a way as possible.
Morris: There's also the theory that institutions tend to get into a rut, and
that grants for innovative projects are a useful way of keeping the
Juices flowing, as it were.
Charles: Yes.
Morris: Whether or not they add anything to the overall knowledge —
Charles: To the social scene?
Morris: Yes.
Charles: Well, I think there's something in that.
60
7. SATISFACTIONS AND HAZARDS OF BOARD MEMBERSHIP
Responding to Individual Proposals
Charles: I think you cannot get away from, as I have said repeatedly, the
satisfactions that must be gained for your "board members , because if
they aren't getting a sense of contributing to the velfare of
humanity from vhat they do, there is absolutely no point for them to
do it. This is true whether you're a businessman, or Just a lay
person like myself, or whatever you may do.
Morris: Other than the feeling that they are working with like-minded and
able people on a topic of common interest?
Charles: Yes. Of course, it's very satisfying to be working with people you
like and whose minds you like, and with whom you like to exchange
ideas; but it has to be deeper than that, and it cannot be, I don't
think — and maybe there 'd be arguments here with other people — a matter
of board members' individual interests.
We've tried, and I've mentioned this earlier, to see that the
board members really use their executive director as the filter for
the things to come for consideration, because if each board member
becomes a transmission agent for areas in which he or she is intereste
then immediately your board becomes a trade-off situation. So that
you say: I will support so-and-so's project on something that doesn't
interest me at all if— you know, it's the old logrolling thing— they
will support me.
Now, I've always admired the Rosenberg Foundation for this.
Despite little lapses here and there — and nobody got hurt by them at
all — it never became a pattern for us. So that even though Ward
Mailliard would introduce the Audubon Society, it never became a
feeling of the board that each one of us would then come in with
something of ours and expect it to be — in fact, I have always been
absolutely determined that I myself will never bring in anything that
would benefit anything I was interested in.
61
Charles: If they wanted to come to Rosenberg with a proposal, they had to come
in some other way. They would have to come through Ruth Chance's
belief that this was something the Foundation might want to do, and
through her research. So that I would never appear at all. And I
don't mean appear. I really wouldn't be in the picture, as far as the
reason why it's coming into the Rosenberg Foundation.
So, when people call me, I would say to them: It will hurt you,
not help you, for me to be involved in this. If you want to go and
see Mrs. Chance, or follow the procedure, which is to call and ask if
you may submit something, or if you can come see her first, or whatever
you want to do, you do it.
I refuse to have my special interests become — it's so dangerous
to do. You only have to do it once or twice (I suppose we all have
to experiment with these things, even though we know that they don't
work. Every once in a while, you'll weaken and say: Well, maybe, all
right) and it becomes to me a very serious embarrassment.
Morris: Has this ever been a problem with the board as a whole? Among the
nine of you there's quite a collection of experience and membership
on various boards and committees.
Charles: It's really worked out, I think, extremely well. I think that the
board members are all careful about that. If something comes in that
has to do with something that you're on the board of, then you Just
say: I won't vote on this.
Well, it's all right to say you won't vote, but we've Just had
this recent discussion in the city government here, as to what
special interests are, and we don't want to be so careful about it
that, as the mayor says, we'll lose all of our most valuable people
that way. You don't want to have to do that; on the other hand, it
is true that, even if you don't vote, you can be a very powerful
force in the discussion. You really have to, I think, almost absent
yourself from the meeting itself to see that it gets the kind of
discussion it needs. People aren't always careful about that, and I
think they should be. I think that Rosenberg has come out extremely
well in maintaining a sort of unified situation there, of a whole
board trying to review together what the director has researched.
New board members sometimes have to learn not to do that — not to
go behind the director. You'll read a proposal, and then you'll think:
Well, I know something about that. I'll call Joe Doaks, and see what
he has to say.
There's nothing so distressing to your executive director as to
have you show up with a bit of information that she didn't have,
always been very careful about that .
I've
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
62
What I've always done — if I would get Ruth's "book of applications and
I'd come on one that I felt I knew a little more about, or knew some
body who did, then I would call Ruth and say to Ruth: Have you checked
with so-and-so?
She's delighted to have a chance to do that without being
confronted in a board meeting with my saying:
Joe Doaks, and he told me — .
Well, I checked with
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
People do those things. I spend a great deal of time advising
youthful members of different organizations that they really should
watch themselves, not to embarrass the staff members, whatever it
might be. Stanford board of trustees or any other board. It simply
doesn't do to confront" somebody at a meeting with something that you
could have taken up with him or her privately, before.
Now, some people won't respond and don't realize that you're
doing them a big favor by doing that. Sometimes you may need to
bring it out and let it make its point. But you shouldn't be doing
it constantly, because you'd make yourself so unpopular on the board;
it's very interesting that any board as a whole resents seeing anybody
embarrassed. So that the person who raises the embarrassing issue is
the one who become unpopular, not the person who was going to be —
Leaving something undone — ?
Yes, right. And you have to be very careful about that if you're
going to maintain your position in the board of confidence and
thought fulness, too. After all, if we're all involved in human —
Good manners is —
Yes, exactly. It is involved in our human contacts. They've got to
be conducted in a way that we can be proud of, and certainly not be
ashamed of, anyway.
Knowledge of Community Networks
How do you define the area in which board members can bring their
knowledge and experience with various community agencies or social
issues into —
The Foundation?
Yes.
63
Charles: I think that's a highly specialized situation. It seems to me that
in relation to myself on the Foundation "board, the most valuable thing
that I would bring is a broad experience in hov community organizations
work and a sense of when they're in trouble, or when they're doing
something that won't work, because of my own general experience — not
in any given organization. For instance, I would read an application
with a proposed organization that, from my experience, I thought
wouldn't work. And then I would say to Ruth: I'm going to raise, at
the board, the issue of how this thing is organized, and perhaps you
will ask them some questions, as to whether there isn't a better way
to do this. Or something of that sort.
So that I consider that my specialized knowledge is in the whole
field of the community and the interrelationships, both of organiza
tions with each other and internal relationships within an organization.
You realize that sometimes an application may embody an idea which
perhaps ought to be followed through, but what effect is this going
to have on a couple of other organizations that think they're doing
the same thing?
You see, if you cut yourself off — if you're going to live in the
organization world, then you've got to be sure that you live in it
sufficiently to gain the sense of the network of organizations that
comprise our modern communities. It's as if you had a lot of town
meetings, so that almost any organization meeting is a town meeting,
because it touches on other aspects of the community; and the person
who has some experience in a great many different aspects of the
community is going to be helpful to the overall situation.
Ruth has said to me: You have the mind of a generalist , and
those people are hard to find. Which I took as a compliment, because
I do try to see things in the broad — I don't want to get too impassioned
about a single issue or a single organization — that's why I've never
been a one-organization person. There are some very valuable people
who are one-organization people, but those people may not be fitted
at all to be on a board of a foundation. Because of the way their
minds work, they can't escape the relationship of whatever you propose
to do to the thing they are principally interested in.
I think that during the time that I was on the Rosenberg Founda
tion we did an extremely good Job of having people on the board who
were, in the best sense of the word, what I might call 'lay generalists . '
They didn't come out of any of the kinds of things that we've served,
although they would serve on a board here and there and have the
experience. They had enough experience that they weren't wed to
relating everything to the one thing that to them was important. We
need those people, but there are certain places they don't belong.
64
Morris: Let me ask you for a 'for instance' on this. Going back to Roy
Sorenson: he vas a consultant to Community Research Associates on
this series of projects on the mult i -problem family, which began in
the late forties. And then, in 1951, he became a member of the
Rosenberg board. I guess that would still be Charlie Elkus — ?
Charles: Oh, Charlie adored Roy, Just adored Roy.
Morris: Did that cause any problems, either with the continuing of the grants
or with Roy?
Charles: Yes, I believe so. I -have always worried about whether or not social
workers belong on the board of a foundation like Rosenberg. I'll make
that as a generalization because, right now, I believe there are
several people in that category on the board. For instance, there is
a social worker, and he's very good. I haven't worked with him long
enough to know if he can restrain his impulses , because one of the
impulses that social workers have is a conviction that the lay people
don't know anything about this field.
That was one of the things that made Roy very difficult for me tc
work with. I liked Roy. We were friends, but I felt myself being
constantly manipulated into a decision that I was not going to make,
and I would ultimately get my back up and not do it. I didn't like
that feeling. I would say that it would have occurred to no other
board member to try to get the other fellow to change; he wouldn't
have felt that he had that much knowledge, but the people whose
professions are in the fields that we work in tend to believe that
they know more than anybody else does about the whole field, and where
this emphasis ought to be and that —
[Phone interruption]
Time for a Woman President: 196l
Morris: Did this continue to be a problem when Mr. Sorenson was president of
the board, from 1957 to 196l?
Charles: Yes, because — well, then, I'll have to tell you that little story,
too. There were nine on the board and they revolved the presidency
around among the men, as if the women were not there.
Morris: Oh, dear.
Charles: So, after about ten years, when I saw that this was what they were
doing, I began getting myself really annoyed about it because there
couldn't be a more competent person than Ellie Sloss. She's on the
65
Charles: Mills board of trustes — president of their alumni association. She's
a person of great competence, and the idea that without even saying
anything to anybody they Just —
So I called up Dick Guggenhime; I'm a very good friend of Dick's.
He's a very fine man, and I'm extremely fond of him. They were casting
about for a president, somebody who hadn't already been president,
because we didn't really have any terms. I must tell you about that,
too, because we Just followed Charlie's pattern. We Just eliminated
terms.
We'd decided we'd have three-year terms on the board. Let me
say that, because it involves the presidency. I think Charlie
continued being president during the entire time that he was there,
almost. We would come to a board meeting and Charlie would say: Well,
I see that three people's terms expire this year (on this three-year
term business) — now, is this the way we really want to run this
Foundation?
He'd say: Nobody knows enough to be retired off this board.
Morris: In Just three years?
Charles: In three years. Or, we may have attempted to insert 'retiring after
two terms' or something like that. Well, we eliminated all of that,
and it always used to make me laugh, because every year we'd say: Well,
so-and-so's term's coming up. We can't have that.
So we Just would rescind all the things in the by-laws that had
anything to do with people's terms. So that meant that pretty soon
we would get — I don't have the dates when all this happened. You have
to look back and see when Ellie Sloss was president, because that will
tell you.
Morris: She was president from 196l to 1963.
Charles: In the early sixties. Well, that was when I reached the end of my
patience with this thing. Because everybody on the board had already
been president about then, I guess. Nobody ever had to get off. And
so they didn't know exactly who to make president. Dick Guggenhime
was the chairman of the nominating committee. So I called Dick and I
said: Dick, you have the perfect candidate for president — Ellie Sloss.
I want to say that I think the way you've been conducting this board,
just simply revolving that presidency around with no consideration for
a woman is — I can't understand it.
Well, Dick and I had quite a hilarious exchange, and he said to
me: Then you will want to be president, too.
66
Charles: And I said: We're not talking about that right now (because Dick and
I are like brother and sister; we're really friends). And I said:
All I'm talking about is Ellie Sloss, and she's qualified.
Well, I finally got to them and they nominated Ellie for president
and, of course, she was a fine president. Well, then later they went
through some of the same thing in regard to my presidency, but Ruth
was the person who really worked on that.
Morris: I would have thought that at the level of the people on the board
there would be less of this business of 'a woman's role is in the
Charles:
home1 than there is, maybe, in society in general,
observation?
Is that a valid
No. I consider that men are men wherever they're operating. They
operate in exactly the same way. There are certain things they think
women can't do, and you have to prove over and over again that you can
do these things. You have to do them better than anybody else does,
or they don't really do it. I don't think that our Foundation board
was very much different from men in society in general.
Charlie was a great supporter of women being participants in the
board. Now, the question of a woman being president never arose while
he was alive. I would have been interested as to what his theory
about that would have been, because I got into a little trouble with
Charlie once; and, fortunately, as I think I've said to you before, I
always have one part of me that can stand aside and see what's
happening. And so I can be amused by things that might cause a sort
of traumatic experience [laughs].
Communication and Personal Relations
Charles: Leslie Ganyard — as I said to you earlier, the executive becomes very
upset when what they recommend is rejected, and they have to learn how
to conceal it. It's more painful with some things than others, and it
Just depends on whether their heart has become really seriously
involved with something that they're proposing.
So in this case we evidently had had a little spell of rejecting
some of Leslie's things. And one day she called me up in tears (or
perhaps we were together) and she said: I Just can't stand this.
Just having all my favorite things rejected.
I'm
I said: Well, why don't you stop making a recommendation? Why
don't you Just say, 'these are the points in favor, and these are the
points against, and the board should make up its own mind. ' I said I
67
Charles: thought that would ease her feelings — because it had a personal element
in it, her feelings did, that they were rejecting her as well as what
she was recommending.
So she thought that was a good idea. So she brings over the
agenda to Charlie, who went over everything. He never allowed it to
be sent out till he had reviewed it. We don't do that anymore; the
president doesn't see the agenda any earlier than anybody else does,
which I think is correct.
But at that time he reviewed it. So he said to Leslie, as she
reported to me: What does this mean, you're not making a recommenda
tion?
She said: Well, Caroline suggested that I not do it, because I've
been bothered, by it not being accepted.
And he said: I'll just speak to Caroline Charles.
So he called me up and he Just said: You Just stay out of this.
I don't wish you to become —
Well, he had no business saying that to me, as a board member.
And, after all, every board member can have whatever conversation he
or she wants with the executive. In my view, this is the health of
the organization, when it has lines of communication coining from
everybody in it. But I was so amused by Charlie's indignation, that
I said: Absolutely, Charlie. Whatever you want.
One thing in my organizational life is that I'm not going to
argue or create issues with people whom I generally admire, whom I
think have pretty good judgment in everything that they do, because
all I'd do is just cause an upheaval over what is really a personal
matter. I didn't see any reason to say to Charlie, for instance: You
have no business telling me what I can or can't do.
I never do that sort of thing; I try to use what intelligence I
have in dealing with these problems that seem to get to be a little
personal.
So I Just said: Charlie, that's fine. I'm perfectly willing to
do that .
Leslie and I talked about it and I said: Leslie, Charlie employed
you, and you go right ahead and do this.
And this is only a technicality, because it didn't change the
content of what she did, at all. It only meant that she again exposed
herself to rejection — and she got rejected plenty of times from then
on, too. The board has always been very independent, and sometimes
68
Charles: some little thing vill come up in an application that strikes somebody
as revealing something that perhaps isn't quite what we want to give
the money to, or something like that. We have tried, and we do, .
would think, almost always have a pretty unanimous vote on things.
Whether this is changing now, I don't know. But that's what we tried
to do—to talk out our questions, and sometimes put it over for more
information.
But, anyway, Charlie was of his generation in regard to women.
He thought that we ought to be on there, and we ought to be putting
our money and our minds into making decisions, but I doubt very much
if he would have thought a woman ought to be president. I don't know
that, for sure.
Now, he had many women friends of great ability in San Francisco.
Some of then, I thought, were not of as great ability as Charlie _
thought, but he thought they should be on boards and had a contribution
to make.
I think that perhaps women are more likely to speak up in an
organization— on a board— when they think it's important to consider
another way of doing things.
H
Morris: You felt that none of the men would be willing to speak up?
Charles: They wouldn't have started, but they were agreeable once it had got
started, by me in the first instance, and by Ruth Chance. You see,
Ruth's style of working was really quite different from Leslie
Ganyard's. Leslie had been brought in the Foundation as staff by a
very strong person, namely Charlie Elkus. And she worked for Charlie.
Now, it wasn't that she asked that it be that way, but she knew^
the realities, and the realities were that she was working for Charlie
I can't think of a person who I know— he would be a benevolent despot
in that situation.
Morris: It sounds like it, but like a very able one.
Charles: Very— he had wide knowledge and he made the Foundation what it is. He
and Leslie together. Leslie was the perfect arm for him to go out anc
investigate around the countryside and so forth.
69
Responsibility to Staff: Leslie Ganyard Retires
Morris: How did it happen that the "board decided to find a new director?
Charles: Because we had passed, some years before, a rule that sixty-five
would be the retirement age. I knew that this was going to be very
painful for Leslie, because you don't feel like sixty-five. I don't
feel like sixty-nine. You Just don't feel that way.
I decided that my function, at least one function, was to stay
close to the executive when it was time for her to retire and try to
help her through this period without yielding on the fact that it had
to be done; because the suggestion you'd always get from anybody in
that position is: Well, I could stay on another year or two years.
Well, the minute you do that — I think it has to be done. I,
myself, really believe so. Now, I'm lucky, because the retirement
age at Stanford is seventy, which will mean that next year will be
my retirement from the board of trustees. And, you know, you don't
feel any different, but you just have to — I'm a realist, so that it
won't make any difference as far as I'm concerned; I must capitulate
to that rule.
Ruth and Leslie are both realists, of course, but Leslie — oh, my,
she was very upset by having to retire. She felt that it was a
reflection on her by the board, and I kept telling her — I just felt
that she ought to have somebody to talk to about all this, and so
she'd pour out to me how she felt. And I would Just say: But, Leslie,
it just has to be. These rules are good for everybody.
Morris: With all her experience and acquaintances, did she not use those
skills in some other way?
Charles: Well, there's hardly any way to do it. I mean, Ruth is up against
the same thing right now. There's no organized way to make use of
all the abilities that you've developed.
For instance, John May retired and he was immediately invited by
Bill Hewlett to reorganize his family foundation.
Morris: Which is, in a way, about where the San Francisco Foundation was
twenty-five years ago.
Charles: That's right. When it started. I have Just hoped that a similar
kind of thing would be presented to Ruth.
But we were talking about Leslie's retirement. The first thing
that I did was to tell the board that they had to have some kind of a
party for Leslie Ganyard. They didn't agree at all, and Charlie and
70
Charles: I had a great to-do over that; but I said: It is absolutely essential,
You will regret it very much if you don't do it. She's been here too
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
long; she's given too much. We don't have to have a big party.
You thought there should be a ceremonial —
I thought there had to be a ceremonial something, and we had to give
her a little present. Well, the men finally got overruled by me and
we had a nice dinner at the St. Francis and gave her a silver dish or
something — which the board very carefully paid for, because we were
careful not to use Foundation funds for that sort of thing. But I
knew that it would just wound Leslie Ganyard to the quick if she were
not able to say to her friends that something had been done to
recognize her.
But, anyway, the thing that's so sad, you see, is that she became
pretty disabled. She had arthritis anyway, and the minute she lost
the compulsion to be down there every day working, you could see her
getting more and more crippled up. I've seen this happen frequently.
It's very sad.
That really is.
She had a brother with whom she lived. Her husband had died first,
and then her brother, but it seems to me that this all happened quite
quickly .
Was she a widow when she was employed?
No, she wasn't. And I think that probably her husband was still alive
when she left. I'm not positive about that, but I've forgotten
whether he had some small business or something. Leslie was the real
wage-earner in the family. Of course, the salaries we paid in those
days were Just ridiculous and the retirement pay was just incredibly
low.
71
8. THE FOUNDATION AND' THE COMMUNITY: 1958-1971*
Ruth Chance
Charles: We finally got the board to make some kind of cost-of -living raise —
I vas determined that Ruth should not be treated that vay. So, again,
I started this great battle at this retirement. This time, Ruth got
involved in the battle, because she made up her mind she vasn't going
to have anything done and I made up my mind she was .
Morris: That's marvelous. Somebody who doesn't like having things done for
them in contact with someone who likes doing things for people.
Charles: Well, it's not quite as simple as that. There's a certain pride
involved in this for the Foundation. If you let a person go, who has
done such things as Ruth Chance has for the community, without any
recognition at all — it was my belief that it should be something done
for all the people to whom she'd given grants, not a social occasion.
So we had the party that way.
You know, organizations have their noblesse oblige. That's what
I'm really thinking of. I just don't think that an organization like
the Rosenberg — and what it had come to be, really, under Ruth's
direction — could not say thank you. We left one phase behind when
Ruth came in — and that was our sort of small, country phase — and
really developed into something that was then known all over the
country. I mean, everybody knew the kinds of things Rosenberg did,
the style with which they did them, and the capacities of Ruth. It
would have been a very awkward thing to have no expression of our
appreciation.
I think Ruth knows that, although we had some strong arguments
over the party at the time. Our friendship is strong enough that it
was untouched by our disagreements.
72
Morris: Would you have been involved in the selection process by which Ruth
joined the Foundation?
Charles: I wasn't involved in the selection process. I think Charlie had
appointed a selection committee, but he, again, made the choice. We
had people applying, but nothing like we had applying when Ruth
retired; we had hundreds and hundreds of applications for that Job.
Anyway, it really was in Charlie's hands. He heard about Ruth,
who was working for Carl Spaeth, I believe, on a Ford Foundation grant
down at Stanford, and felt she was the right person. No one had any
contrary feelings about her. And so Ruth was brought in.
Morris: Did the board have some discussions about what kinds of qualities they
were looking for and what direction — ?
Charles: Oh, yes. We went through the usual things — I think we very much
wanted another woman. We did not want to lose our ability to be
close to the so-called grassroots, both in the Valley and in the city.
We wanted to try to get someone whose personality would make it
possible to be close and for people to talk to.
The most important single thing, I believe, is that when someone
comes to see your staff person in the office, they feel completely
comfortable about talking to her or him.
Morris: People that I talked with tell me that Ruth Chance never sits behind
her desk — that she's out there beside the desk.
Charles: Yes. Well, I don't know how Leslie did it, but in any case, they
both had the same effect in making people feel they were really being
heard. We've been extremely lucky, because I think we have a fine
young man now, who's doing much the same thing.
We really wanted to preserve our simplicity, because among the
applicants we had —
Morris: In 1958?
Charles: No, the last two years — for Ruth's successor. Among the applicants
we had high-powered people who had gotten their training in some of
the eastern foundations, and they thought our Foundation was much too
informal, and they were going to — [laughs] and, of course, the thing
they said that absolutely ruined their application was that they were
going to straighten up the Rosenberg Foundation and make it into a
real foundation. Nobody on the board wanted this, and so they Just
got lost, right then.
Morris: [Laughs] Oh, dear.
73
Charles: But it was kind of amusing, because they were young people who had
had the training, as I say, in the big foundations, where everything
is parceled out , and the board member really only gets to anything
much later on.
Morris: Could you say a little bit more about what Ruth has meant to the
community?
Charles: Oh, my, yes. You see, because she approached the work of the
Foundation as a philosophical as well as a practical thing, she saw
what she was doing all the time. So she was able to make it work in
a way that you can't do if you just aren't looking at the total
objective that you may have. Ruth's objective was always to try to
understand what the world was doing, what the times were doing, and
where a small foundation could fit in places where nobody else would
pick it up. Ruth had grasped immediately the somewhat fumbling ideas
of the Foundation, of its role.
Ruth, because of her personality and her extreme insight, has
been able to make friends with every single person she's ever inter
viewed, whether she rejected them or not. And whether she absolutely
put them through the mill on their budget or anything else, she's
been able to do that and divorce it entirely from any feeling of
personal friction. It was always on the basis of what is the best
way for them to do what they wanted to do, and the most economical
way. That's what the Foundation wanted and so Ruth would spend
endless hours, and people are just crazy about her, you know — just
adore her.
her.
It's meant a tremendous amount to the Foundation to have
Morris: That's the sense I've always had.
Charles: Yes. She has even had many breakfasts with people from the East who
were here and realized that was probably the best time to see her.
And probably dinners, too. And then lunches. Along the lines of
perhaps getting to know a little more about her — or Ruth and I — when
I was president, we would have lunch, once or twice a month, working
on what was coming before the board, and what policies we needed to
enunciate, and so forth.
She has tremendous intellectual ability combined with her feeling
sense. Ruth is really a total person, which is hard to acquire in
this life, and which is what we're all struggling to do: somehow to
bring our intelligence and our emotions and our perceptions all
together at once, and be able to respond and act upon what we see.
And Ruth has certainly brought that to a high sense of development.
74
Defending Applications: Innovations in Military Counseling and Housing
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
The other thing about Ruth is that she is fearless in defending her
position on her applications. She will just go after the board when
they decide they're not going to do something that she thinks they
ought to do. She organizes her battles as if she were in court,
arguing.
Ben Duniway has had the most enjoyment, I think, of anybody of
teasing Ruth. Ben's quite a tease and he would like to tease her
about her legal positions, and it's really ~
Her briefs?
Yes That's right. Well, that's exactly right. Ben has always had
a nice relationship with Ruth. Whoever is the president, Ruth's
policy was to remain very close to that person, to be sure she saw
them. She'd go to his office or wherever with her stuff that she
wanted to talk over and get ready for each meeting. And, of course,
the meetings come awfully fast when you meet once a month. You just
practically are either preparing for one or getting over one all the
time. You never have any rest from it.
But Ruth, you know—she's really a giant in her abilities and
her selectivities, her wisdom in being able to realize what is coming
and what we ought to be doing to try to help it. And the way she
would bring things into the Foundation that were very hard for some
of the Foundation members to swallow.
For instance, she had an application for a grant to a group that
was advising draftees on what they could do to explore their situation
withaview to getting out. You remember, early in the Vietnam war
those young people were desperate. Ruth felt that this was an abso
lutely legitimate thing for the Foundation to do. But she ran
complete opposition on the part of the most conservative business
members of our board. They thought it wasn't patriotic or loyal, <
we just shouldn't be mixed into it.
This was painful to Ruth, but she was so courageous about things-
she would have known, as I knew, that she couldn't get that through
the board. But she was perfectly willing to try it and argue for it
and do the best she could. It's what kept us in the forefront of the
foundations that are making creative grants.
Does a proposal like the draft alternatives produce a hot and heavy
debate amongst the board members?
Well, the board is a very sophisticated board. So that you don't get
beyond the realms of courtesy and consideration. And your views are
expressed very quietly. So you don't get into what you might call
'hot and heavy' debate, in the sense of emotion —
75
Morris: Lengthy might be a better word —
Charles: And not so lengthy, because you get your members — they vould express
very flat-footedly what they thought, and you knew it. For instance,
our doctor, Malcolm Watts, was very much opposed to these draft things,
and he only had to say it once or twice for you to know that there was
no argument with Malcolm about that. And we have tried on the board —
when I was chairman, of course, I became more conscious of what I was
trying to do.
What I want to do with a board is to try to keep it, no matter
how disparate it is, together, to keep the opportunities open for
discussion and support of differing points of view, but to recognize
the moment when, if you allow anything to get rammed through, it will
destroy the board and the board's self-confidence. That I don't
intend to be a party to, because you can't — a board is an entity, and
it's a very — I'm not thinking of the word I want, but it has to be in
balance, and it's easily unbalanced. And if you start losing members
on account of their position never being understood, or their being
cajoled into something they don't believe in, I can't tolerate that,
and I don't approve of it.
What about an issue like community development? There were a number
of grants in this area in the fifties, and I wondered if that would
be one that caused the board debate?
No, I don't think the philosophy of it bothered the board at all, but
specific applications would have areas in them we thought — some
different members of the board would think were not possible to
accomplish, or perhaps not appropriate for us to do, or something of
that sort .
Community development grants, actually, Gabrielle, in that sense,
would have been attached to the welfare of children and youth, or
something, because that is not one of our regular fields, you see.
Those applications — can you think of a specific one?
Morris: They looked to me as if they came out of the interest in migrant
children and families. There was a series that was first sponsored
by the American Friends Service Committee, that began as self-help
projects for homebuilding.
Charles: Oh, well, that was something else. Yes. You were thinking of those
grants where the man had invented a new way to build migrant homes.
Morris: Yes. The point that struck me was that he wanted to help them improve
their housing and felt that this would give them —
Morris:
Charles:
76
Morris:
Charles :
Charles: That I remember well, and it didn't cause any hot and heavy debate.
The reason that it was even supported was because his idea and
methods of construction were such that nobody had — it was a real
invention of his, the way to go at it.
That's a point I hadn't understood.
We liked to sponsor innovative things. So we thought if we could
demonstrate that this method of housing built better housing for the
migrants to live in, then we would to it on a small scale, and if
somebody else wanted to pick it up, that would be fine.
But the basis, the thing you have to look for when you're
reading about any of our grants, is: what is the tenuous connection
with children and youth? That's the only reason that we would do
anything that was as much of a departure as that. We wouldn't want
anybody to think that we were in the development of housing field.
That wouldn't be our field at all. We only saw that nobody was even
making it possible for this young man to build these things, and we
thought they ought to be given a try. Now, I don't know what ulti
mately happened, either, about that.* But it seems to me Ruth has
told me that they've gone on — he's gone on, and been —
Morris: It was the fact that it was a young man — ?
Charles: No, not the young man. That the purpose was to house children,
including their families, you see, of the migrants, who were so badly
housed—that this might be a solution to a problem that hadn't been
solved.
Morris: And thereby improve the whole family's feeling about itself?
Charles: Yes. The whole family relationships and the children and ^ everything.
That would be the only reason we would to that kind of thing.
New Organizations in the Valley
Morris: Then, several years later, there was a Center for Community Developmen
that received a grant; their interest seemed to be in helping low^
income and minority groups learn to speak for themselves in relation
to public services and the like.
*See Ruth Chance interview in this series.
77
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Where — here?
I believe it vas down in the Valley,
organizing of agricultural workers,
was on the Rosenberg board?
I think he was earlier [1957-61 ].
His company was then in agriculture,
caused him problems on your board?
Other people were doing some
Was this while Robert DiGiorgio
I wondered if this would have
Bob was very good on the board. We all appreciated him because we
didn't know what his reactions would be, but since this was where we
always worked, we were not going to stop working there. And Bob took
a very detached point of view.
Nov, this community development thing — we had some very serious
questions raised with us, in which some of the landowners each took a
board member to persuade to get out of the migrant business. The man
who called me was Carl Wente, a very fine old man. I had worked with
Carl in other things, and he said: Mrs. Charles, I just have a strong
feeling that you don't know what you're doing down in the Valley.
I said: Well, tell me what leads you to this belief.
He told me about some grant that we had made that caused somebody
to join the union or something of that sort, and I said: Well,
Mr. Wente, that grant was not at all for that reason, because our
only purpose is to make things better for the children down there.
We had underwritten health centers, and community development —
I Just don't recall what that is — and schools, better schools for
them. And I said: We're not interested in unions.
They may well have been saying down in the Valley that the
Rosenberg Foundation was encouraging unions. I think this preceded
the two unions that are down there now.
Yes. There was a farmworkers' organizing committee that at that
point was not yet connected to the Teamsters or the AFL or Ce'sar
Chavez. Ernesto Galarza was working with them.
Oh, yes. It was said all over the Valley by the far right and by
some of the newspapers in Bakersfield that the Rosenberg Foundation
was a well-known left-wing organization that was trying to destroy
the fine relationship between the growers and the workers.
But the point is that I don't think you ever convince anybody
in those arguments, you know. I just said: Mr. Wente, I am sure that
we do know what we're doing. If it's being called something else down
78
Charles: There, I'm sorry about that, but we think it's very important that
these children be properly fed and housed and that their health
needs be taken care of better than they ever have been before.
Input from Experience with Other Organizations
[Interview 3: 11 November 1971*]////
Morris: I thought today we might tie in some of your other activities. How
has your work with other organizations been helpful to your work with
the Rosenberg Foundation, and vice versa?
Charles: I think it's been tremendously helpful. I occasionally have people
say to me that when they're appointed to some very important thing,
then they'll get out of everything else. I think you should do
exactly the opposite, because I think that ability to cross-fertilize
things, to know what somebody else is doing and what other organiza
tions are doing, is very helpful. Now, it has to be used, that
information, in different ways. That remark was made to me when I
was asked to join the Stanford board in '5^, tut I found it immensely
important to maintain those contacts that I had with the numerous
other organizations that I've always worked with in one way or
another. In fact, during all of that period, I was president of
Edgewood orphanage, and then I was president of the Burke School and
worked in organizing auxiliaries.
That always worried Mrs . McLaughlin a great deal ; she didn *t
think it was an intellectual enough enterprise for me , because
auxiliaries were not part of her generation's life, you know. I tried
to explain to her that it was a tremendously important outlet for
people who really wanted to do something constructive, and didn't know
how, and were not going to be doing it in a way that we might consider
to be intellectual . What they really wanted to do was to give service
in an organized way.
Well, she ultimately agreed with that, and somewhere in her
biography she refers to the fact that it probably was a very useful
thing to do. I must have organized about a dozen auxiliaries in that
period right in there, because you'd organize one, and it was
successful, and then somebody would want you to come. And then the
main job was how to get out of running their auxiliary for them.
So, in any case, I've found it extremely useful to have the
inside information that I had about what other organizations were
doing.
Morris: Did it provide any insight into how organizations worked that was
useful in evaluating some of the Rosenberg proposals?
79
Charles: Well, yes. It would. I would say that in an organization like the
Foundation, and maybe you could use it with Stanford, too, where you
have a very highly qualified executive director. Because at the
university, of course, the president of the university is in that
position of being the executive director of what goes on, and the
trustees sit as policy makers; but you make better policy when you
know more of what's going on.
In the Foundation, particularly, where you have a very small
group — nine persons — and a very competent executive director, the
main thing is not to get in her way — to make it possible for the
executive director to get things done. So that it is very important
just not to get into too much detail, investigative detail. I guess
you could put it that .way.
Morris: As a board member?
Charles: As a board person, because you simply interfere with the work of the
person that you've hired to do that. And you embarrass them. And
those things don't make for the smooth working of the institution.
Working with Young Adults
Morris: Kow about youth groups? Several people have commented particularly
on your skill in working with youth groups .
Charles: It isn't so much working with youth groups as it is working with young
people .
Morris: Could we take this back to Mills and your lectureship there?
Charles: Oh. Yes, I'd forgotten about that. That also happened in those
years. You know, from '1*8 to '58, I'm surprised I kept my sanity,
but I had a marvelous time.
problem.
[Laughs] I didn't even know I had a
But that's true; I'd forgotten about that. I started teaching
at Mills and stayed there for ten years, teaching twice a week. I
like young people very much, and I think they like me. We get along
fine. Mostly because I try to be honest in what I say. I don't think
that I know all the answers to everything. In fact, I have to say
that (and maybe I've said it before) I think my life has been a
learning experience for me. I've Just kept on learning things that I
didn't really know before.
We had, I think, some happy experiences at Mills College.
80
Morris: Weren't you lecturing on the involvement of women in the community?
Charles: Yes. We changed the title of the course several times, tut I think
maybe 'Community Service' might have been the title.
The classes were always small, there was plenty of time for
individual understanding between me and the students. The first
thing , though , that I had to make clear , and that took a little doing
that first year — and once you did that , then it was known — was that I
was not easy. There were going to be examinations, and they were
expected to know the answers, and so on.
My first semester, when I gave the midterm, the papers I received
were universally so bad, so poor, that I rejected them all. A couple
of the students started to cry, and we had a great to-do. But I said
to them: You know the difference. You take lots of courses. This
isn't a course to just roll through without doing any of your homework
or understanding exactly what we are doing.
And we understood each other.
Morris: What department was this in?
Charles: Education. I don't think they had a sociology department at Mills
then. I'm not sure about that; I haven't followed closely.
They were really very good to me there, because I had my own hour
and my own standards; and once they knew that I had standards — they
saw the outline of my course and knew that I exacted something from
the students and probably heard from the students that I did — we all
got along fine. Because I think that young people — I've always had
the theory, and always found it to be true, that if you are honest
with them, they will measure up to what you want from them. That is,
honesty from them and good intentions.
So that a lot of my relationships with young people have been
more informal than what you might call 'working with youth groups . '
Morris: That's a good distinction.
Charles: For instance, one of the things I'm doing now is this Rockefeller
Foundation thing — I won't go on too long, except to say that the
Foundation put a little money in it to start. I think maybe five
hundred dollars .
Morris: Rosenberg?
Charles: Yes, Rosenberg did. Because the Rockefeller Foundation wanted some
local support in order to get this thing going. In fact, it's
completely predicated on local support. The arrangement is that it's
81
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
about eight corporation leaders and about eight ghetto kids. The
object vas to vork out a way that they could be of mutual benefit. I
was sort of a — I don't know what — ombudsman, or something.
I certainly wasn't able to contribute, because the — have I talked
about this before?
No, you haven't, but it's been referred to by other people,
to hear more.
I'd like
Well, I don't want to use up our precious time on the Foundation; but,
in any case, the ultimate arrangement, which has now worked for more
than two years, is that the executives of the different corporations —
and the ones that are presently in it are Bank of America, Bob
DiGiorgio's company (DiGiorgio financial company), the telephone
company, and the Fireman's Fund insurance company — well, I've forgotten,
but I could get the list.
To use a current expression, that group has quite a lot of clout.
It does. Oh, it's a real thing. It's real. For instance, Tom Clausen,
the president of Bank of America, has really been almost the guiding
force of this group. Bob DiGiorgio's been extremely helpful. Well,
a lot of the men have. But during that first year, when somebody had
to really hold that together, it was Tom Clausen who did that. And we
had to learn how to get along with these ghetto kids , who were pretty
rough.
We met on a first weekend —
A retreat kind of thing?
A retreat. And they said: We don't trust you businessmen. They all
said that. And: We don't know what you want; and: You break your
promises; and — you know. Well, it was really a fascinating weekend
to watch them. They actually turned pale, the businessmen did. They
hadn't heard very much talk like that.
And the young people — you know, they call themselves 'the youth' —
they have an idea in their own minds that youth goes up to about
thirty-five. They don't mean what we mean by youth.
That's an interesting concept.
Well, they say when the Russians talk about youth, they mean thirty-
five is maybe the cutoff point.
These young people, some of them are the same ones who were in
the original group, and some are new ones. They've substituted. When
one person leaves , they vould —
82
Morris: Did the Rosenberg Foundation grant assist in selecting which young
people or which organizations would compose —
Charles: No. When Rockefeller young people came to San Francisco to set up
this group, they visited the Foundations here and asked for suggestions
of who to select. They talked to San Francisco and Rosenberg, and ]
don't know who else they talked to, but that was the way they found
their young people — through the local foundations.
Morris: That's interesting.
Charles: And then, Brooks Walker, Jr., is also in this group; he's president of
the U.S. Leasing Corporation. I think he's on the board of the San
Francisco Foundation, too. They may have made a small grant. It was
an organization grant.
It was a very loose kind of a thing— at the beginning it was
almost too vague to get a handle on at a meeting. They did finally
write a proposal. You might talk to Ruth Chance about it. She 11
get quite excited about it because it didn't conform quite to her
idea of what a proposal ought to be. I stayed strictly away from
the whole thing, and I've forgotten how it ultimately turned out; but
it was for some organizational purpose.
The businessmen almost immediately assessed themselves several
thousand dollars a year to make that thing run, and eventually they
got an office; they paid a salary to one of the young people to be
the secretary of the operation.
Morris: That's a new idea, too, isn't it?
Charles: Oh, it's all new. I think it's very interesting, very experimental.
Morris:
Charles:
Does it have a name?
It's caned Resource Exchange. The businessmen did this on the
basis that the money they put in is really operational money.
method— and the reason they call it Resource Exchange is that they
would try to look for material they had that would be useful to this
group.
Suppose a company was moving. When Metropolitan moved, some
body 'd call up and get all their typewriters or furniture or something
that these kids could use. Then the kids have a warehouse, and when
somebody needs equipment, they come to them. So that's why they call
themselves Resource Exchange. They're kind of a center for the
acquisition of stuff which is probably useless to the corporations
or the institutions, but means a lot to somebody starting up an
operation.
83
Charles: It's been extremely successful. The Rockefeller Foundation — this is
John D., Ill — started this in about six or seven cities. I think the
only concept they had was some kind of a partnership betveen the
really top business people and the top ghetto kids who had made their
way — hadn't left, but had achieved some success within their own groups
to be self-supporting or self-sufficient in one way or another. And I
think this one has survived in the most interesting way.
We meet once a month for breakfast at seven-thirty in the morning,
all year 'round. Sometimes the young people furnish the breakfast,
and sometimes — for instance , our next meeting will be next Monday
morning at seven-thirty at Fireman's Fund. Sometimes the telephone
company does, sometimes the Bank of America does. They take turns,
and then the kids do it, too, which is very nice.
But my role has been one of, really, conferring with the young
sters. If they think something's going wrong, they'll call me and
say: Can we come see you? What do you think is the problem?
Occasionally I'll get hold of them and tell them that they're
much too hard on the businessmen. Because they occasionally make a
power play when they want to get something — for instance, they'd love
to have that group take a stand on valid issues. Well, it would be
the death of the group if you had to do that, because the businessmen
might be completely on the other side of whatever issue the young
people thought was important. But the personal relationships between
them mean that the businessmen are willing to give in and assist in
things and areas where they might not be willing to go on record as
supporting it on a political basis.
I Just said: Now, you kids don't want to destroy a very delicate
relationship you have by your inability to understand these business
men and how they function and what they can take from you.
Because, really, they'd get very rough, you know, and press. We
had a couple of kids who left it because they said: Well, if we can't
get what we want, we won't stay.
And I said: Well, I think that's fine, too.
This is a delicate thing to do. For instance, they take
advantage, and should, of their coining to know somebody like Tom
Clausen or Bob DiGiorgio, and they will go to them on the outside
and say: We have a project. Would you help us? Outside of Resource
Exchange. They never would know them otherwise. Or they'll come to
me and review with me what the foundation resources are in the
community that they might tackle.
84
Charles: I just had a visit from a young group in the Mission who are trying
to give information to Mission residents about where they might go
for this, that, or the other thing. One of them is a young student
at Boalt Hall who wants to give legal information; what it is, really,
is an attack on a language problem, because so many of the people in
the Mission don't speak English. And unless there's a place where
they can go to get what they want in Spanish, they're helpless. So
the young lawyer — he's going to graduate this year, I believe — and the
young woman who runs this information center (I don't know exactly
what they call it) came over to see me. And I said to them: Are you
prepared now, to go after money? Do you know what you do yourself —
what you want the money for?
Well, it had never occurred to them that they needed to know
these things, and I Just made a list for them — a little sheet of
paper that clearly laid out what they did; that they ought to under
stand what kinds of services they proposed to provide, and where
people could help; and separated them into different categories. So
that if somebody would want to help with the legal end of it —
Morris: They could identify it —
Charles: They could identify it and identify the cause —
Well, this young lawyer said to me: Well, now, that's a new
idea.
This is why I love to help these young people, because a lot of
these things that are old to us are brand new to them. They don't
understand they need to be organized if they're going to go out for
money. You can't just take a shot at some rich person and bring 'em
down. If you're going to raise money, then you've got to be an
organized effort and you have to be prepared with the materials
that'll be needed. So, anyway —
Expectations of Support
Morris: Sitting on the Rosenberg board, could you identify where in time
these new ideas began to develop, in leadership?
Charles: Yes. I called Ruth early this morning because I wanted to get a
little better perspective on the sweep of things. You know, it's
hard for me. [Laughs] I'm not far enough away yet from the whole
thing. After all, I did Just leave Rosenberg in January and I
haven't yet got the perspective, as I have, for instance, on the
League of Women Voters. I know what a developmental thing they've
gone through, because I'm separated from it enough to see.
85
Charles: The thing I wanted to clarify in my mind, and which was really very
satisfying to me in my brief talk with Ruth (because I had lost the
dates, which you have, you see; I came on in 'U8, and Ruth came in in
'58. So Leslie Ganyard was there the first ten years that I was on
the board), was that it gave me an opportunity to see what a tremen
dous thing Leslie Ganyard did for the Foundation because of her
pragmatic approach.
In Leslie's day, the problems were different from the problems
which really were beginning when Ruth came in, in '58 and the beginning
of the sixties. Leslie's Job, which she did to perfection, was to get
out, travelling up and down the state. She was getting acquainted
with people who were doing things. I think that there was still a
hangover from the old, lady bountiful days, where the people to whom
we gave money were immensely pleased to get the money. Whereas Ruth
came just at the beginning of the era which now continues, when
people thought they deserved money for the things that they wanted
to do and were not afraid to ask and be very aggressive about it.
There couldn't have been a better person than Ruth to interpret what
they wanted, to bring it to the board in a fashion that wouldn't
offend us because we hadn't been exposed yet to these very aggressive
methods , and make it possible for us to be comfortable in giving
money to entirely different kinds of groups.
During that first ten years when I was on there, we were not
really spending all the money we had to spend, even though it's no
great sum. Interest on fourteen or fifteen million dollars may be
$700,000 or $600,000 a year, which is small. But, still, we weren't
spending all that. So we were accumulating a surplus and we needed
to know how to spend that. Because we had a policy, that perhaps was
unwritten, that we did not intend to accumulate more money. We
intended to spend the legitimate interest on our investments, and we
also didn't want to put the Foundation out of business by overspending—
Morris : And going into the capital fund?
Charles: And going into the capital. We had no intention of doing that. That
wasn't a problem to us, that ten years. It was during that time that
we, one year (and I think I may have mentioned this earlier), tried to
initiate or invite applications from —
Morris: From the educational —
Charles: From the educational world. We got around to, I guess, four or five
universities. I've forgotten now. Mills, Stanford, and so forth. I
wanted to clear up with Ruth this morning when that happened, because
it was before she came in. It was all over when she came in, but it
was a very disappointing experience. Some people weren't ready to
apply for any money for anything. And we would get applications that
86
Charles: were obviously Just made up because they knew there was some money
somewhere. Nobody was being dishonest, but they Just weren't within
our fields of interest.
And so we decided that was an experiment that didn't work. I
think we gave some money.
Morris: That's interesting in relation to the study that was done by Mabel
Ellsworth in
Charles: Yes.
Morris: She commented that from the material she had gone through, the projects
which seemed to be best were ones that really came out of a felt need
in the requesting organization.
Charles: Oh, yes. Spontaneously, yes. There's no doubt about that. We tried
initiating and it didn't work. And, of course, there was no need to
try again, because about the time Ruth came in we began to be flooded
with applications. This wasn't because of Ruth's arrival, because
nobody knew Ruth. She came out of the law school down at Stanford,
where she'd been doing some work. She wasn't known, really, very much
in the welfare field. If it had been twenty years later and she was
known as she is known now, it would have been perfectly natural that
we would have had that response.
Awareness and Regulation of Foundations
Morris: Are you saying that, in those post-World War II years, there were
things going on in society that brought this flood — ?
Charles: What I'm saying is that, beginning about in the early sixties, people
began to understand what foundations were for, and so they began to
know enough about going after money for themselves. People became
bolder about coming in, as they should be. But they would have been
hesitant to come into a foundation earlier, really. I don't think
people generally understood foundations.
The big foundations were Just beginning to come out here to the
West and make grants. And, of course, for those first years, we were
the only foundation that made the kind of grant that we made, and
which I think is our peculiar distinction. And that is small grants,
so to speak. I can't remember a grant for more than fifty thousand.
Morris: Yes. You said that you thought that many of the Rosenberg's best
grants had been in the five and ten thousand dollar range. That was
very striking.
87
Charles: That's right. Fifty thousand and under. And, of course, ve were in
a different boat from the big foundations, as far as the supply of
money; more could be done with little grants, but, on the other hand,
people were very earnest about it. They would see something they
could do in remedial education or welfare — as you know, we were much
interested in the Valley and the migrant workers.
Then, also, another change took place at that time, which I
wanted to check with Ruth this morning; because, for once, I decided
I'd better give a little thought before you got here as to what I
might say to you [laughs]. Because I've been bad. You were prepared,
and I'm not.
Morris: My function is to say: In 1962, this happened.
Charles: Remind me. But the requests and the grants began to be more urban,
you see. Previously, they'd been in the country, rural. And, in
fact, one of the things that we have done only recently in the last
two or three years was to try to stimulate more grants from rural
areas. -Because we realized — Ruth would go on her visits. She always
kept that up. And when we were looking for a new executive, the one
thing we absolutely insisted on was that it be a person who would be
comfortable about leaving his desk and going out. So he'd be out of
the office, maybe, a couple of days a week.
Morris: And also someone either familiar with or open to rural communities?
Charles: That's right. We feel it's the most neglected area, as far as what
can be done to help people in small ways. And it's really interesting.
When you get into it, you would be surprised to learn of the many
opportunities and advantages there were in a city — not that you have
to be so naive about it , but in a city compared to what you find in a
very small town. And I'm talking about towns way up in the northern
part of the state or in the southern part of the state, and not semi-
big towns, like Stockton or Sacramento or those cities, but the
small —
Morris: You're thinking of places like Placerville and Auburn?
Charles: Yes. They really could use help, and they don't have —
Morris: Going back to when these urban grants began to multiply, or people
• became bolder, as you said, were there any organizations you recall
that particularly spearheaded some of these more innovative kinds of
requests?
Charles: During Charlie Elkus's period, as long as he was in the Foundation,
he had certain things that he was particularly interested in. One
was Karl Holton and the Juvenile Justice commission — it wasn't
called that then.
88
Morris: Karl Holton was director of the Youth Authority.
Charles: That's exactly right, and that vas his thing. Anything that came
through him, we took a very serious look at, and usually did, because
it would be some unusual way of taking care of those problems. And
those were not, of course — well, it's hard to say 'urban1 or "rural.1
Usually the children in trouble had come from some urban area, I think,
even though the institutions themselves might be in rural areas. It
was really dealing with the problems of growing up.
Morris: Did the board have much discussion of the propriety of a private
foundation giving grants to a state agency?
Charles: Well, we went through that discussion. I don't know. Ruth would know
better than I whether that actually began when she came, but I don't
believe so.
Morris: Those grants go back quite a ways. The transient youth study was
begun in 19^6, and then the older girl and the law in 1957.* Many of
those reports seem to be still very sound.
Charles: We discussed that whole area, and our justification always remained
that it had to be something that hadn't been done before. But we
discovered that legally we could make grants to state agencies, as I
understand it.
Morris: The political aspect wasn't —
Charles: Wasn't an issue. We didn't think of it as an issue.
Morris: I guess what I'm doing is thinking back from the concern that's come
up recently — foundations, I gather, are prohibited from political —
Charles: Yes. That's a complete change, and that was a change in the law. But
there were no such laws at the time that we were making these grants ,
In fact, foundations were hardly regulated, I think, at all.
There were many, many foundations that didn't observe what you
might call sound, charitable principles. We didn't really know any
around here, but we knew that they existed throughout the country--
a way for people to get their money put away in a so-called profitable
*These studies were made under the guidance of statewide committees
appointed by the chairman of the California Youth Committee, founded
in 19^2 to advise the governor and later renamed the Governor's
Advisory Committee on Children and Youth.
89
Charles: way, or at least without being taxed; and then, occasionally, it went
to the members of the family. These kinds of abuses of the purpose of
foundations had gone on quite a while and were really what led up to
these new laws in the seventies.
Following those laws is costly for foundations like ours, in the
sense that we have to have additional personnel and a good deal of
additional work and reports. We also have to pay a tax ourselves, now,
to the federal government, which was not true before. Yet, most of us
who worked hard in a legitimate foundation operation really welcomed
those laws. We were not the people who protested them, except that we
just didn't want the additional work. But we did know that there were
people who needed such. laws if they were not going to bring down public
obloquy and criticism on the foundations.
Some Continuity of Grantee Relationships
Morris: How about the minority community? The Mexican-Americans seem to have been
a special interest of the Foundation long before this became a popular
cause.
Charles: Yes. Because we were concerned with the migrants and they were mostly
Mexican-American. We didn't actively move toward minorities as a
special case.
We tried to take — but the fact is, of course, that all of our
grants came to the office, to the executive director. And as time
went on, we had repeated board actions about what kinds of things she
could reject in the office. We always had a list in the front of the
book of what had been rejected, and whenever she didn't have a clear
policy, then she would bring it, and we would reject it.
For instance, we have never given money for scholarships or any
individual — for a person doing individual research. We would just
decline that out of hand, because we considered that our purposes
were for projects, demonstrations that benefited a number of people.
We were not thinking of benefiting a single person who was trying to
get his degree or something of that sort. That has not been considered
the purpose of the Foundation, and I doubt if it ever would be.
Morris : There also seems to have been continuing response to the needs of the
Negro community. Do you recall the series of projects with Neighbor
hood House in North Richmond?
Charles: Oh, yes. That's right. And I did get off that subject. Planned
Parenthood we had a long relationship with. We have had relationships
90
Charles: with the Girl Scouts and the Campfire Girls. And most of the schools,
once they knew that they would not be eliminated, would come in to us
with creative things , and the departments of education when they were
trying to teach something that was a departure.
But when the executive director would discover an organization
that seemed to come up with creative ideas as demonstrations, we would
take very serious looks at those things and develop, sometimes, quite
a consistent relationship with them; and I think that the Neighborhood
House is one that is a good example.
I think the most interesting things that we did were often just
kind of little, freakish ideas that somebody would have of a way to do
something. And sometimes a sponsorship would turn up something very
unusual. But we were always trying to see that we went toward young
people. So that we restricted our grants always to youth, although
youth — the age — Just varied up and down all the time. It gave us a
huge field. A lot of the things that we did would have to do with
parents, but because they were involved with their children, we wanted
to do it.
Morris: In terms of strengthening the family unit and relationships.
Charles: Yes; right.
Young Applicants
Morris: Has the board ever discussed, as a matter of policy, how they feel
about youth expanding into the twenty-five to thirty-five age bracket?
Charles: No. It's never been discussed in there, at least while Ruth was there
I don't know what Kirke is doing now, or whether they are seeing the
age rising. This was really an idea that came to me from this Resourc
Exchange.
I think the reason it came is because these young people from the
ghetto are not all that young. They're along in their twenties some
where, and as they stay with us, they get toward thirty, you see, and
still call themselves the youth. But I don't think that Rosenberg has
thought about that .
Morris: Another phase of Rosenberg grants (maybe it comes into sharper focus
in the annual reports) is the grants to the counterculture, the
alternative services. Those seemed to peak in 1969, '70, and '71.
Charles: That's right. And when those began coming in to us, Ruth was the firs
to realize (Ruth and I spend a great deal of time on the telephone,
91
Charles
Morris :
Charles
Morris :
arguing; if I say that Ruth began to realize, she'll say: I couldn't
have done it if the board had not begun to realize. And we then get
into that sort of thing) — Ruth began to see, and the board was not
unwilling to see with her; but she was the one who saw that we were
going to be dealing with young applicants, that weren't going to
always —
The applicants themselves were young people, rather than the traditional
model of a group of older people saying: We must do something for the
youth in this — ?
Sponsoring organization, yes. Absolutely,
these people were in their mid-twenties.
It was a change, because
Depends on what you mean by youth; we would be interested in
encouraging requests from very much younger people, in the teens, for
instance, who might have discovered something. But I don't think
that this has ever developed into anything, because the older people,
through whom they would have to work, would probably not understand
what it was we were trying to do — which was to get them to stimulate
the young, but then try to give them the major responsibility for
doing whatever was done. But when they got along in their twenties,
there were a great many things coming to us from groups of young
people with new ideas, you know — the street people, and that sort of
thing.
I made a list from the 19&9 annual report of grants that seemed to me,
by their titles, to be in this category as much as anything else. It
was close to twenty-five per cent of the dollar total of grants made
that year.
Charles: I believe you, yes.
Morris: There was the Youth Resource Center, and a mobile learning center with
junior college students as teachers. There was an in-community school,
the Switchboard, Hospitality House, Youth Art Gallery, Glide Foundation
Project for Unwed Mothers, the Chinese Streetworker, West Oakland
Legal Switchboard, Black Arts Music, a cross-cultural family center
involving a toy bank.
Charles: But I don't know whether you can make that generalization about all
of those, because as I listen — for instance, the tutoring projects
were still supervised by a professor, somewhere along the line, in
San Francisco State College at that time.
We had to find somebody to receive our grant. That was one of
the problems we began running into around that time, too — to whom we
would give the grant, who was considered responsible and established.
By our own rules, we had to give it to an institution.
92
Accountability
Morris: This is before the accounting requirements of the federal government?
Charles: Yes. These were our own rules that we required of ourselves because
we had to account for our money and where it went and how it was
spent, and so forth. We always wanted a responsible institution or
even — I'm trying to remember if we ever did give it to a bank — but
somebody who was used to accounting, and would give us the information
that we needed, that it was properly spent.
It was tremendously to our advantage that Ruth had her legal .
training; that was very helpful to us. She viewed the problems in
giving money away as a lawyer would look at them, as to accountability
and so on. I think if you ever interviewed our accountants, you'd
find that they got instructed by Ruth, rather than the other way
around. [Laughs] She didn't always like the way they went at it,
and she'd make them do it all over again and do it another way.
Morris: Oh, marvelous. I wanted to ask you about the people in charge of
minding the capital. How did they respond when you did reach the
years when you wanted to go into capital to make all the grants you
wanted to?
Charles: Well, we never went deeply into capital. I don't know, you'd have to
get the facts on that. It was never our intention to do that to any
great extent. We had the feeling, as the requests got more numerous,
that we never wanted to be in a position of underspending our income.
So that we always said we would rather take the risk of overspending
and going into capital, than of underspending and having money
leftover.
Now, the new laws, as I understand it, make it possible for you
to stretch it over two or three years. So you might go considerably
over in one, and then you could go under it the next year or so.
And that would not be considered accumulating your money. I'm not a
lawyer, so I can't always make the right statements about that.
Board Studies Community Programs and Attitudes
Charles: You see, our board divided itself into small committees. We had a
finance committee and a nominating committee, of course, and
occasionally we would appoint a board member or two to some special
project that had come in not fully developed, and where the executive
director would feel that she could use help from a couple of members
of the board.
93
Morris: Could you think of a couple of instances of that?
Charles: Well, let me see if I can. Recently, we vere beginning to try to
change our program a little, in order to do several large things
rather than so many small ones, because we began to realize that we
didn't have the personnel in the office to follow so many small
projects.
#?:
Charles: One of the things we became very much interested in was this child
abuse program, which we had begun in a very small way. Ruth Chance
discovered this remarkable woman, Mrs. Davoran, who had really become
an authority on child abuse, and it became evident that it could be
one of the things that we might select as a field from which we would
welcome applications. We asked a couple of board members to look into
that, and to look into what was being done out at the San Francisco
General Hospital, and so forth.
We have only occasionally asked the board members to look into a
program. Our board — I've always respected them for that — have tried
to stay quite free of inspiring applications or being responsible for
them in any way.
Morris: The child abuse problem is curious. It has seemed to be in the back
ground, a factor in a number of concerns about young children, but for
so long people seemed to avoid looking at it as an issue in its own
right.
Charles: I think that's quite true, and that was true for a good many years.
For instance, the first thing we did in that field, I believe, was in
Santa Barbara, where somebody had the idea of a telephone service,
where you could call if you were about to abuse your child and let
somebody talk you out of it. It seemed to work very well, and I
thought it was, myself, quite an insightful thing, that most people
really don't want to do things like that, but they get absolutely
exasperated.
Morris: I remember it coming up as a point in a couple of research papers on
child care in the mid-fifties, but then when the child care proposals
were written, they didn't talk about child abuse any more.
Charles: No, I know that. But, as you well know, things like that are faddish.
There are probably thousands of things that need to be done, but
something sort of catches the public eye, or some particular case
makes people sensitive to it. For instance, did you read yesterday
or the day before, where some poor young woman had killed her child?
The poor woman. She had a three-year-old. She had this infant. She
was pregnant vith another one, and I guess she didn't know what to do.
94
Charles: I don't know vhat kind of a person she was, but the approach is very
different now. It's much more compassionate. I guess we talked about
that last time— about the change in public attitudes. That's been an
enormous change, I think, of compassion toward people we would have
thought of as criminals.
And there was something my husband and I were talking about this
morning, while we were reading the paper; it was the fact that student
have taken up alcohol again, so it said in the paper.
Morris: Yes. That was a very startling thing.
Charles: And it was interesting to me, because most people of my generation —
most men, particularly—think that's a very harmless and proper way,
if you want to be wild, to be wild.
Morris: It's part of the 'coming of age' thing?
Charles: Yes. And I said to Al: We think of the drugs as something for which
we ought to have a cure, that it's inspired by some lack in people
that we ought to be able to analyze and do something about. But
alcohol, except as the society worries about alcoholism in adults —
when young people do this as part of their college libertarian ideas,
it's not quite looked upon in the same way, and maybe it should be.
I don't know. Maybe if somebody can't control his drinking —
Observations on Decision-making by Committees
Morris: Since we have your husband on stage, I wanted to ask you how he felt
about the great involvement of time your work has taken over the
years, and how you work that out as husband and wife.
Charles: Well, he has always been awful good about it, although sometimes he's
gotten very irritated, and he'll say to me, when I start giving
orders, that this is not the League of Women Voters. [Laughter]
But that was years ago, and he's always been generous about the
things that I have gotten involved in, and where I've had some
recognition, you know. He's really been quite wonderful about that.
We have been fortunate in that he's been an extremely successful
and well-recognized lawyer. His ability is something that he doesn't
have to be embarrassed about, and which has made him one of the top
lawyers in town. So that we haven't had that feeling that I was
taking anything away from him in my involvement in voluntary organi
zations. And the other thing was, and he finally would laugh with
me — I would laugh at him first — he dislikes these community things.
He does them, but they annoy him.
95
Morri s :
Charles
Morris: They do?
Charles: Because they take too much time, you see. He has something else he
thinks he'd better do — and not only thinks, he probably does have
something legal he ought to be doing. He'll go to a lunch, you know,
for some charitable organization, and find this conversation to no
end, as he would say, to no point, going on and on and on, when he
ought to be back in his office doing something else, and resents it
very much. He doesn't like to go and have to hear long speeches on
things when they could send him a paper and let him read it. [Laughs]
That's his idea.
How about things like his service on the BART board? Didn't that
involve a fair amount of technical and business matters?
Well, that was something quite different. He enjoyed that very much.
Al is not — I really think, although he's a marvelously patient man as
a husband and a father, he doesn't have the patience to listen to a
lot of nonsense that you have to listen to when you work in these
organizations. You have to find out people's attitudes about things
and come to understand why they have them, and come to understand how
you can — and Al really doesn't like that aspect of community service
at all.
He enjoyed BART because it was dealing with something that he
believed to be terribly important that the city get started doing.
He really enjoyed his associations, but he got terribly impatient
about it and frustrated because things didn't always go the way he
wanted them to go. That he would like and would tolerate, but — now,
he's on two or three boards right now. He's on the International
Institute board, which he started out on twenty years ago.
Morris: Did he?
Charles: And then they asked him back on it. Well, he just gets absolutely
wild (I don't really pay any attention to him), and then I say to
him: I believe that there is enough community work to be done that
each of us can find something that we enjoy. I see no reason to come
home so frustrated that you —
And so he's bad. He'll go on a board and then maybe not go to
several meetings. He doesn't do it conscientiously. He's conscientious
as a person, but he doesn't get the sheer pleasure that I get, for
instance, out of Just watching how people behave on boards.
Morris: -The process of community decision-making?
Charles: Yes. How it's done and how you can deal with certain kinds of people
and can help to get the right answers , or at least what seem to you
to be the right answers, by a little better understanding of how those
particular people work than —
96
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Somebody made the comment that quite often on a board or a committee
there are a lot of points of agreement between people who think they
dislike each other. Have you found that, too?
Yes. I think that's quite true. One of the things that I have always
done (I did it first unconsciously, and now I'm able to do it much
more consciously) was to try not to make my comments early, but try to
begin to see where the agreement might lie. So that at some point, I
could say to the group: Now, it seems to me that we are generally
willing to recognize that this, that, and the other thing; and the
only thing we really have yet to discuss is something else.
And, of course, this is very helpful if you have somebody — I'm
chairman of a committee right now for Public Broadcasting Service,
and there's a station manager from Philadelphia whom I like to have
at every meeting because he's very gifted in that respect. He doesn't
talk much until suddenly he will say: It seems to me that we have
certain agreements, and I would like to move thus and so.
good at this.
He's very
It's very hard for the chairman to do that, because it's much
better if the committee itself participates sufficiently so that
somebody on the committee can make such a proposal and make the
motion. The chairman can't make a motion, you see. So that when you
recognize that you have somebody, I must say that it's a very nice
feeling. I know that this man will always do this. He probably doesn't
know himself that he does that, you know.
Have you ever discussed it with him?
I never discussed it. I don't want to make him self-conscious about
it.
That ' s a good point .
I think it's much better for him. He does it naturally, and it's
extremely helpful to everybody, because he senses the areas of
agreement. Sometimes we get in a rough discussion, where there seems
to be a lot of dissension, but if you can pick out two or three areas
and move ahead on those, sometimes the other things will disappear.
Most people want to get along and want to arrive at a conclusion
that's fair.
I
I think that to do successful community work, you have to believe
in people and want to get along with them and want solutions to be
reached. If you don't have that willingness, you won't really enjoy
it. I don't really mean to apply this only to my husband, because he
is such a good person, and has been such a marvelous husband, but he
really is very impatient. When you're working, you just have to sit
97
Charles: around and listen to a lot of stuff before you can really start pulling
out what it is, and where they're going to agree.
Now, of course, a lawyer's training is very different from that.
He's got to prepare a case for which he's an advocate, and he's going
to be using — unless he's convincing a jury, he doesn't really need to
get the agreement of all these people in a discussion, as you need to
in a committee. Even when you're trying a case before a Jury, you want
their agreement, but they're not entering into it every minute, you
know. They're just listening.
Morris: And you can make your whole case —
Charles: Yes, that's right. And, of course, in groups you just can't do this.
I was advising some new young people, who've just come onto the
Stanford board — they came to see me, to know what the best procedure
was, and I said: If you disagree with something that is being proposed
at the board, if you can possibly let the person who's responsible for
the motion or the action that is going to be taken — if you can let him
know in advance of the meeting that you want to object, he will respond
much better and be much more helpful to you than if you suddenly burst
out in the meeting and say: I don't agree with you at all. Because
you throw that person off his rudder; but if he knows in advance that
he's got some objection —
What happened the last time when I recommended this to the young
people — they did what I told them to do, and at the meeting the next
day, this person withdrew that motion, because he saw that he was going
to have too much dissension.
Morris: He had been advised beforehand?
Charles: Yes. And he had the privilege of withdrawing it without somebody
forcing him to have to do that. You don't get along well by embarras
sing people. That's the last thing in the world you should ever do,
if you can possibly avoid it.
Morris: Is this particularly a problem or a caution in groups where you've got
a generation gap? In other words, an older group and a younger — ?
Charles: Well, it's only a caution to the young ones. They don't understand it
at all. They love a good confrontation. It's very hard for them to
understand that the group process is really a way to arrive at a con
sensus. It is not a way to force your own opinion — in fact, you can't,
force your own opinion. That's the trouble. You alienate half the
people there when you do that.
This is hard, and I'm always taking my young people aside in
Resource Exchange, you know, and saying: Now if you want to make that
point, I suggest you do it another way — that you talk to a couple of
people in advance and make your preparation.
98
Charles: Of course, that isn't as exciting; but, on the other hand, they don't
always lose. I mean, they will almost always lose when they're doing
it as an ego trip — you know, I love some of those expressions. They're
so marvelous.
Morris: Very vivid.
99
9. PRESIDENT OF THE ROSENBERG BOARD: 1971-197^
Women as Presidents
Morris: Could we talk a little bit about your vork as president of the
Rosenberg board?
Charles: Yes.
Morris: When you worked to have Ellie Sloss become president, didn't somebody
say: That means you're going to want to be president, too.
Charles: Yes. [Laughter]
Morris: How did you feel when that did come to pass?
Charles: Well, Ruth has been remarkable. Her idea of her Job as executive
director was to be involved in everything that went on , not in an
offensive way but in a constructive way.
Morris : Including things like the board —
Charles: Like who was to be the president and all of those things. And she
said to me: Caroline, you should be president of this board.
I said: I certainly should be. There's absolutely no doubt
about it.
And she said: Well, I think you will be now.
I had been vice president, you see, and it would have been
logical, except that I was a woman, that I would be the next one.
Ruth knew that, and Ruth said: It's not going to be that way, and I
don't think that's what they want to do.
Well, fortunately, Ruth sat in on some of the nominating committee
meetings, and she expressed this idea. Maybe they would have, anyway;
I don't know. I'm not confident about that. I had been on there an
100
Charles: awful long time, and I finally said to myself: I'm not going to get
off until they make me president, because I think it's a reflection
on vomankind [ laughs ] .
Al said to me: Well, I think you could do it— like that.
And I said: What do you mean? You know very well I could do it.
Well, he likes to tease me, "because he knew that would inflame my
comments. But, in any case, it seemed to work quite smoothly. I don't
think it would have if Ruth hadn't been there.
Morris : Everybody on the board seems to have been quite in support of Ruth as
executive. If they had no problem with a woman executive, why were
they reluctant to have a woman president?
Charles: Oh, no, no. That's very different, very different — the executive.
That is something that has, I think, run ahead of the officers in
voluntary organizations. It seems to me that women have been accepted
in the posture of being executives or operational management earlier
than they have been as president. Even now, certain organizations
would not consider having a woman president.
You wouldn't want a woman president at Stanford, although I was
terribly pleased because I was asked to be one of the vice-presidents
about five years ago. About two years ago, the president of the
university came to me and said that he and his wife were going to be
out of the country, and he would like me to be acting president of
the university while he was gone. Well, you could have knocked me
over with a feather.
Morris: How marvelous.
Charles: I was very pleased about that.
Morris: That would be a good way of testing the water.
Charles: Oh, no. There was nothing — you couldn't do any harm, anyway. I mean,
you're so bound in by all the conventions that have gone before that
it would be almost impossible for the president of anything, including
probably the President of this country (although we Just saw an
example where he did an awful lot of damage); but it's very hard for
the president of an established institution to do any real harm.
You're so bound in by all the things that have gone before and all of
the people you have to consult.
I think the reason women don't attain to these positions is more
because of some sensitivity on the part of the institution that it
might downgrade the institution itself because they had a woman
president. I don't know that Mills has ever had a woman president
of their board of trustees .
101
Morris: But you did get to be president of the Rosenberg board.
Charles: Yes, That's right.
Morris: And when you assumed that position, did you feel any negative vibrations?
Charles: Oh, not a bit. No, not a bit. It was Just almost like an oversight.
As it had been with Ellie, several years previously. It was Just —
they never thought of it. And once they had, and she was a very good
president, then it went back to the men.
The men want these things, you must remember that, too. We
always revolved the presidency and, since we didn't have any established
rules about how many terms you could serve on the board, it was possible
for every man on the board to be president. If there was a man on the
board who had not been president, this was what he wanted. So there
wasn't going to be a woman put in as president when there was a man
who could be.
Morris: Even though you'd been there longer?
Charles: Oh, yes. But I was going to have to get off sooner or later, and I
was vice-president under Ben Duniway; so it seemed to me that if I
didn't become president then, I would have to get off and forget the
whole thing , you know.
Refining the Foundation's Goals
Morris: Were there some goals that you set for yourself?
Charles : Well , I always try to set goals when I become the president or
chairman of anything by trying to understand the purposes of the
organization, and then what, in a year, you could do. Now, we have
a customary three-year term, but you couldn't really look at it as
what you could do in the next three years.
Well, my goals were extremely well set without my assistance,
actually, because the Foundation was at a point when it was going to
lose its executive director. I didn't have to be retired for age,
because we don't have any age limit on the directors; but Ruth was
going to be sixty-five within a year or two, and we had to start
some orderly process of looking for a successor for her.
Secondly, during the previous — I suppose you could say as long
as ten years — all of us on the board had become extremely aware that
somehow we had to limit our program so that our meager staff, which
102
Charles: nobody really vanted to enlarge, could carry it. It was not because
we didn't want to give our executive director help, but because we
wanted to be a small, unified group. At least for myself I express
it this way, and I think this was shared by the board. It might not
have been expressed in the same way; we know that the large foundations
the big eastern foundations, were not able to have —
Morris: You say 'big eastern,1 rather than 'big national.1
Charles: I do, don't I?
Morris: Yes, you do.
Charles: [Laughs] But I'm a westerner, and have been —
Morris: I'm a New Englander, originally, and it's very interesting to be now
a westerner and hear this.
Charles: Well, we have to fight for our rights, sometimes, Gabrielle. I find
that in everything I do with the East, I have to every once in a while
stand on my rights as a westerner, because they don't even know there's
any country out here, mostly, even now.
But, in any case, the large foundations were so staffed that no
one person on the staff reviewed all the applications, and could say:
This, of all the things we've been asked to do, we think is the best.
Or: This is the one we should look at.
Now, one of the things that we have liked in the Rosenberg
Foundation has been having a single person, whose mind and intentions
we respected, able to bring to us, at a meeting, eight or ten appli
cations out of, say, maybe forty or thirty or however many, that in
her mind were the best that we could do within the framework of what
we wanted to do. We didn't want to give that up. And we felt that
any kind of assistance that she might have couldn't meet Ruth Chance's
own idea of the kind of help that she needed.
We spent a lot of time talking about this — to decide what kind
of help we could give her that would make her Job any easier, because
she had a very strong feeling that she wanted to see for herself the
thing that was being asked for, to interview for herself the various —
because Ruth used a very interesting system, which I thought was like
getting a fix on things, from my training as a mathematician. It was
like getting a fix on something from many different points of view,
and this is what Ruth would do. She would not use just the people who
had been noted on the application as references. She herself, in most
fields, would know who the people were who ought to know about this
thing. Or if they didn't, that in itself would be significant. So
she would get her fix on it, but she didn't want anybody else getting
that.
103
Charles: Now, there's a great deal of merit to that position, because if you
need confidential information it has to go to you, because the person
you're talking to trusts you. So, if your assistant calls and says:
Would you please give me — you know —
Morris : Tell me what you think of so-and-so?
Charles: Yes. They'll be extremely cautious, because your assistant is not the
person they know, yet. Now, maybe you could develop that as you went
along.
So that it looked to us — and those three years of mine were really
spent in an attempt to- see how we could rearrange our program, our
objectives, so that we could give our executive fewer things to consider,
so she wouldn't get a hundred applications a month, or something of
that sort, which was impossible for her to review. Very early on the
board, although I don't know if we ever had a motion on that, decided
that they did not want to establish a staff.
There was another issue, too, aside from the convenience or the
wishes of the staff, which was the cost. In a small foundation, where
you only have $600,000 a year to spend, if you spent a hundred
thousand on staffing up, and that meant larger offices and more
secretaries — all the supporting stuff — we felt that we would be using
more of our money than was prudent, money we wanted to spend on grants.
The one thing that struck everybody with horror, I think, was the
idea that we might go out of existence. We could have decided to Just
spend ourselves out of existence. Well, I think nobody could stand
that. And that's because of our personal self-esteem, you see, and
that of the Foundation, which had made its place as probably one of
the only foundations that considered little projects that would change
something, you know, in a small way. Ruth certainly led the way — as
we did, ten or twenty years ago, for that sort of thing.
The San Francisco Foundation does a good deal of that now, which
is marvelous, and there are a number of small foundations that have
come up to do that. Nobody else does that sort of thing except the
small foundations, because the big ones don't do that. We've learned
that occasionally one of the big foundations will come in and pick up
a project that we'd started in a small way.
Morris: Yes, Ruth has commented on that.
Charles: And then drown it in money. We would have to go pick up the thing
again, after they had pulled out, because we would be very sensitive
to the fact that some little group that was doing some experimental
work simply couldn't handle any more money.
104
Morris: If a project grows too fast, the people running it lose control of it
and what they're doing?
Charles: Yes. They don't have enough personnel to run it right. They don't
have accounting procedures — I don't mean financial, but —
Morris : Operational .
Charles: Yes, operational. They are totally unable to handle it, and the whole
thing disappears. We had one or two operations like that where we
went back and picked up after the big foundation that had come in and
given them several hundred thousand dollars, which they didn't even
have any idea how to spend. I believe those days are gone, you see,
now, for the moment. The great, big grants that used to sometimes
destroy the thing they wanted to help are disappearing now. The
government made a great many of those grants, and some of the big
foundations did.
But, in any case, we did resolve early in my presidency that we
wanted to continue as we were, as far as the operation of the Founda
tion went, but that in some way we were going to have to devise a
method to make it possible for a single staff person plus an executive
assistant, who is not really operating in the selection of grants —
Morris: Betty Boutelle has more of an informational function?
Charles: Oh, yes, indeed. She does a very good job, and we're very lucky to
have her, but we don't have two experts. That's the point. There's
no argument; if Ruth or Kirke decide that this is the one to go, Betty
is not going to say: I don't think it should be.
If you had a second person of the same stature, you might have
that. In any case, we could be wrong, but that was what we decided.
Morris: Did you discuss this concept with board members from other local
foundations, to the effect of: If we cut down here, can you move into
some of the area that we used to make grants to?
Charles: What happened, actually, was that we didn't have to carry on those
discussions, because in the last ten years the San Francisco Foundatio
and some of the smaller foundations who worked together, had a little
group that met together and were interested and able to pick up some
of the kinds of grants that we had previously been the only ones who
had taken an interest in.
We also knew that not infrequently the executive of Rosenberg
would get together with San Francisco or van Loben Sels or Zellerbach,
and they'd all three put a little money into something. They would
do this.
105
Charles: Our training as board members would be that the board wouldn't get into
that kind of dealing. That would all be done between the executives.
We would never say to the president of the San Francisco Foundation —
I would not say to the president: Let's get together on something.
That would be, really, an invasion of what we considered was a
responsibility of the professional director.
So we didn't need to do that. I think that the thing we needed
to do first was to accept the fact, and Doctor Malcolm Watts was the
one who convinced us that we needed to limit our scope.
I put him in charge of future planning, or some name of that sort,
which was a committee to start with. We would have, maybe, one extra
meeting a month, which would be the future planning committee.
Finally, I made a number of changes to accommodate what I was per
ceiving: that the whole board really wanted to be in on it, and that
we shouldn't try to arrive at a decision with a five-man committee
bringing their recommendations in to four other members of the board.
It was ridiculous. So we worked as a committee of the whole, so
everybody could put in his two cents' worth.
Morris: That's an interesting comment that all of the board members felt that
they wished to be involved in that.
Charles: Oh, my, yes. We have always had that kind of a board. It's really
quite remarkable. I would say that maybe once or twice in the history
of the Foundation we had board members who didn't, and they never
stayed very long. Because what keeps you interested is your own
willingness to be involved in the decisions. We were making some
enormously important decisions in those three years. One was trying
to interview and discover a new executive, and the other one was
trying to preserve the values of the Foundation. In the meantime
curtailing the —
Morris: Coping with the realities.
Charles: Yes. And that was very difficult to do, because our openness had
been one of our great advantages, and people loved to come in and be
able to talk to our executive director. So it was a long, hard row
to hoe.
Morris :
We finally ended up in a compromise, deciding early that we would
perhaps try to select three fields in relation to that that we could,
again, limit. For instance, we decided we would want to take appli
cations related to child abuse; that is limited by its very name.
It would also keep a toehold with your earlier, long-standing interest
in the juvenile justice system.
106
Charles: Yes. We wanted to — and Ruth had always hoped we would — be open to
people whom we'd worked with over some period of years, like the
Pacific — what's the name of that school down in Pasadena?
Morris: Oaks.
Charles: Oaks, yes. That Ruth felt did immensely creative work. And also,
though, we did not eliminate, completely, very unusual things in the
field of children and youth, whether it was education or welfare or
whatever it might be that might come to the attention of the directors
I think we're operating along that same way now.
Morris: It sounds like you picked the best of a number of options.
Charles: [Laughs] Well, we did. We combined them all together, in the end.
Departure
Charles
Morris:
Charles
But, you know, I have one rule for myself that I've observed ever
since I've been in community work, and that is that when I get out, I
get out — clear out. I don't ask to see the minutes any more, so I
have no idea what the Rosenberg Foundation has recently been doing.
Nor do I call back and say: What did you do this month?
I just think those people who do are terrible,
have people do it to me— -
I don't like to
I should think the temptation might be irrestible when you've invested
years of your time.
Well, no, it's not. Unless you're Just not busy. And I am very busy,
and I always make an absolute point of finding something else in whicl
I will interest myself deeply. So that I don't have to discipline
myself to say that I won't do it. I don't have any time to do it.
I will go off the Stanford board next October; I'll be seventy,
and we have a seventy rule, you know, in the board. They won't, hear
from me again, except as there may be something they want. I don't
want to continue defending points that I thought were important when
I was there, you know. And it would be foolish to have any such rule
at the Rosenberg Foundation.
All my life in community work, the people I've appreciated have
been those who would do their Job as president, or the top, and then
remove themselves so that they aren't looking over your shoulder.
When you come in as the next president, and you've got somebody to
whom you have to explain everything you do, it's a terrible burden.
107
Charles: Because, in the meantime, you are explaining it to your board, and
keeping them informed. So I've always done that.
I really do not know what's "been going on. Ruth keeps in a little
closer touch, and is very pleased, and thinks we made a very good
choice when we chose. There have been new members elected to the board.
Selecting Board Members
Morris: What are the kinds of things that you look for, over the years, in a
board member?
Charles: Oh, at Rosenberg?
Morris: At Rosenberg, yes. Would it be the same kinds of things that make a
good board member in any kind of a community — ?
Charles: No. Well, I have always thought that when you're trying to strengthen
or maintain the strength of an organization, you need to make several
decisions about what kind of an organization it is.
For instance, there are certain organizations that are very
valuable for young board members , inexperienced board members , because
they can't do too much damage, and they can learn a lot about how a
board is run. I probably shouldn't give examples of that sort of
thing, but I will only say that I learned a great deal about such
things in the Campfire Girls. That was one of the first boards I ever
went on. I was delighted to have the experience, but we didn't have
an enormous budget, and our responsibilities were not of the sort that
are so heavy, as they are in a foundation.
Morris: Doesn't Campfire Girls put a good deal of effort into training its
leadership? Their board leadership, as well as their group leaders.
Charles: Well, they may now. This was many years ago, and I came on Just green,
I think. I think I'd been a Girl Scout leader, as a matter of fact,
and somebody invited me to Join. You know the way these things are —
a friendship, and somebody knows you.
I learned a lot on there, but I think there are certain kinds of
things that must have experienced board members. University boards and
foundation boards, I think, need — I would almost use the word 'sophisti
cation' about the way a community works, and how money needs to be
watched over —
Morris: Closely.
108
Charles: Yes, that's right. And some sense about — because people can be
incredibly naive. I vas succeeded on a city commission here in San
Francisco by a woman who asked if she could come and talk to me, after
she'd gone on in my place.
We were talking about various things that took place, and she
mentioned some issue that was coming before her, and I said:
you feel as ill-informed as that you must abstain.
She said: What's that?
Well, if
Morris :
Charles :
I said: That means you must not vote.
She said: But I thought you had to vote, either yes or no.
And I said: Well, of course not. You don't have to vote, and
you must decide that if you really aren't well-enough informed that
you're not going to vote. Now, you can't do that very often, or you
don't belong on that board or any board.
Well, you know, you ought to have people on these major boards
who at least know a few of the elementary rules of procedure, and what
their rights are and are not, and all of that sort of thing. But that
[laughs] really overwhelmed me because, believe me, that particular
commission is one where you better know how to abstain, and abstain
every now and then, when they get you into deep water.
When you get in city commissions, of course, there's so much
politics in everything. And if you begin to have a hunch that this is
a political issue, not the simple issue that it appears, then you
better not vote. At least, that's my rule; and, boy, it doesn't
happen to me twice. Next time I will know, because I would begin more
and more frequently to recognize the political issues that come before
me.
Or study up on the particular issue to find out what all of this
could be.
Well, that's exactly right. Whenever I make what I consider to be a
mistake, I always take a great deal of time to find out what happened —
to me, not to anybody else. Why did I make that mistake? What gaps
were there in my information that I should have had before I made the
decision? Or what did I fail to know about the board or the purposes
-I
Morris :
To me, that kind of exploration of yourself is not wasted, because
you always learn something that applies to other situations, where you
Just fail to do something that had to be done.
So that, in terms of the Rosenberg board, you're constantly keeping an
eye out in other organizations for who might be a likely person?
109
Charles: Oh, yes. When you're looking for a board member — I believe, the
purpose of the Rosenberg Foundation being what it is, that you really
need people who know something about the inner workings of the community.
We actually are supposed to be a state-wide foundation, but — I don't
know what the statistics are as to the location of our grants, to tell
you the truth.
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles
Morris :
Charles
So you try to select some board members who know the state-wide picture,
as well as the Bay Area?
Yes. But I really think what you're doing in putting members onto an
established board is filling the gaps of knowledge, experience, person
ality, and now race, which was never an issue before. We'd really
never thought about it at all until the last five or eight years.
Is this the issue known as 'representation'?
I wouldn't like to call it that, because I believe that anybody put on
a board of this sort, or a university board, should be a person who is
willing to speak for himself or herself, and that he doesn't — even
though, for instance, in the university we have alumni trustees, they
are not there to speak for the alumni. They're there to speak for the
total welfare of the university.
We don't want to have that kind of representative government;
I've always thought that our representatives in Congress should have
the courage to still be speaking for what they believe in, and not
necessarily going back to the constituency, unless they think the
constituency knows the issues, and enough about them.
What would happen, for example, if there was a young Mexican-American
or Asian on the Rosenberg board — would their idea about what's good
for the Foundation or the community be different from other members of
the board?
Well , you see , one of the things that you hope to do , and one of the
things that we have accomplished at KQED, about which I'm very proud —
when I went in as chairman, we also elected nine minority members.
We had a few on, but we wanted to complete the job of making it
reflect the composition of KQED's listening audience, which is nine
counties, and which is about one-third minority. This strike has
demonstrated, better than anything I've ever seen, the fact that those
minorities have become members of the board. Because they have all
supported management's position on the strike, and this, to me, is
very gratifying.
110
Charles: It's a very hard thing to accomplish, because a great many of the
minority people are uncertain about what their role is, and get into
trouble, too. Because their constituents would like to insist that
they vote on every issue as it reacts on that minority. But the good
board members, and I believe more and more we are seeing them, are
going to vote as to what is good for your job, whatever it may be for
the organization.
Herman Gallegos came on the Rosenberg board just about a year
before I went off. Herman is a very sophisticated man; he is also on
the KQED board. And he can be accused, and is accused, by his racial
group, of not doing or doing, or what he ought to do, or that sort of
thing; but he's well able to deal with this in a pretty diplomatic way.
He has to be diplomatic about it.
But in this strike, of course, the principle that was at issue
was a restrictive contract on the part of the engineers that made it
impossible for us to employ minorities as engineers. They all knew
that. Our minorities all knew that section of the engineers' contract—
we had decided we wouldn't accept that for renewing that contract, and
that's what started the whole thing.
Progress and Change
Morris :
Charles
Morris :
Charles :
That raises an interesting question. Have you, as a member of the
white establishment, ever felt that other members of that white
establishment objected to your activities or your views on either the
Foundation or the other organizations?
No. I'm amazed about that. I'm sure that I would be, by anyone who
was very far to the right; I would be personally, because I am not
part of the right, and I don't like those positions. But it seems
clear to me that I am not rejected on the basis that I have crazy
sympathies, too liberal, or anything of that sort. I really believe
that to be true.
Or that the Foundation is in territory where it shouldn't be, in its
grants?
I don't have any feeling that that is said. Now, the only time that
the Foundation was heavily criticized was in the field of left-Communis
action, supporting Communist organizations, which were somewhat
casually designated, down in the Valley, during our work with the
migrant laborers.
And we withstood that. Our board members were excellent. That
was at a time when we had on the board real establishment men. In
Ill
Charles: fact, the establishment at that time was the establishment; now it
really isn't as much. I mean, there were pretty hard-core establish
ment people — but some of them, I think, were in the process of changing
themselves.
There are now what are probably considered establishment men in
this Resource Exchange. Very willing to listen to what the kids have
to say, and to try to compromise on some of the issues that bother
them the most — that sort of thing.
They got started on the National Association of Businessmen, and
they really were absolutely unwilling to listen to anything good about
them.
Morris: The young half of this group?
Charles: Yes. Because. they were in charge of what they called the NAB group of
jobs. They would organize the businessmen, and then get jobs for the
unemployed kids. And according to the kids, those Jobs were Just a
bunch of phonies. Well, the Jobs weren't phonies, but the selection
was all pre-made of who was going to get the Jobs, because they didn't
want trouble-makers, and they had their methods, according to the kids.
Well, that still isn't fully resolved, but certainly the kids had
something to talk about, but they weren't going to listen to anything
good , at all .
Morris : I wonder if this is in the area of social change? This is one of the
phrases I find in foundation literature, and also that foundations like
to be on the edge of innovation. I'm unclear about the difference
between the leading edge and social change.
Charles: Well, you know, the foundations were viewed with great suspicion in
the sixties, when people became aware, through the foundations' own
literature — Congress became aware — that they considered themselves on
the cutting edge of social change, as they say, and Congress decided
they weren't going to have the foundations telling us what we ought
to do. That became a very bitter pill.
I have to say that when we made our grants, we were not trying to
create social change. We were trying to make something easier for
certain groups in the community, without really giving much thought
that we might be leading the way for the community to be easier on
this group or that group. That was not what was voiced in our meetings.
Morris: Or shift the position of that group in the total society?
Charles: Yes. Now, Bill Roth— are you going to interview Bill?
Morris: Yes.
112
Charles: Good, because Bill likes to talk about the counterculture, and his
belief that it should be strengthened and given a chance to make
itself felt. And perhaps if the board had — but that's one of the
advantages of what I have expressed earlier, that I believe boards of
this sort, who get close to the operation of the foundation without
running it, but who, say, meet monthly (rather than quarterly or semi-
annually and then just rush through a whole group of things) — we were
very much involved in every grant we made, in the sense that we knew
what it was doing. Being lay people who were not professional social
workers, we didn't think about whether we were creating social change
or not. We were trying to look at the crisis in society that needed
help, and the people in society who needed help, and maybe we could do
this.
Now, of course, we were creating social change, if that was what
we wanted to talk about. It wasn't that anybody concealed it from
themselves, either; I don't mean that at all. But we weren't walking
around in the grand manner, saying that we were working for social
change. We were talking about how to use the money at our disposal for
improving certain areas of society where people — because we always have
been concerned with groups of people — needed better opportunities, or
better living conditions, or something else.
Morris: When it began to be considered in Congress, and in the various publi
cations on the subject, that in total these kinds of 'cutting edge'
activities could result in major changes in society, did the board
have any feeling that they should draw back?
Charles: Oh, never. That kind of generalization wouldn't bother the board.
What bothers the board is when they're directly accused in a special
case of doing something that is deleterious to maintaining society as
it is. I doubt if that would really have bothered the kind of people
then on the board either, though we never chose them for that reason.
But we have not been dedicated to wholesale change.
I think that a lot of people are not conscious of saying that
they want to maintain things as they are (this whole country's dedi
cated to progress, though it hates change. It likes progress, you
know. I've said that before); but I think there are some groups who
have been warned by sociologists that if they aren't careful, they'll
create social change, which will make it bad for them.
We've never had people on the board who ever talked that way or
thought that way. We have dealt with what has come before us as a
specific, where you saw groups of underprivileged children —
Morris: On a case-by-case —
Charles: Yes. Absolutely case-by-case, and we haven't really added it up. Now
Ruth would have been not so much conscious of that as she would have
113
Charles: teen of vhole movements, like she sav the street people coining and
believed that we could improve their condition. But they were coming,
not because of anything we could do. We couldn't keep them away. All
we could do would be to ameliorate the situation in some way and
observe it.
Morris: And observe that it was a large number of people.
Charles
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles
Morris :
Yes, a movement. I think we did lead the way for other foundations,
particularly in the area of realizing that only the young people
themselves — because the old-time social workers were really not
equipped to deal with — and didn't want to — these new things that came
along. They would draw back. We only had one or two: Traveler's Aid
was something that we gave a great many grants to because it seemed
to — and did, of course — see these people pouring in, and their
condition.
Your observation was that social workers generally were not comfortable
moving into this new area. Would that apply also to education and
health, do you suppose?
Oh, I think so. I think at first the old-timers — nobody wants to
change the way they do things — would say: Oh, these people are
terrible. You can't help them.
Well, that wasn't our business. Our business was to find out how
we could help them. At least, that's the way Ruth Chance saw it, and
brought to us opportunities to do that. And the thing that was
important for us was that it wouldn't be a terribly expensive thing
we were being asked to do. Maybe $25,000, or even less, to do some
thing unusual to help, you see.
It just occurred to me:
of the grubstake.
that's not dissimilar to the Gold Rush idea
Yes, yes. Well, I think you're quite right. That's very interesting.
Of course, it had to all be spent on what they asked for. Think of
the kinds of things we do, for example: we build housing, a little
bit of housing, you know? We discovered an architect who knew some
thing about building housing for migrants better, and so we gave him
a little money. The board was awfully good about those things.
I think I should stop.
I know you have another appointment. I think the only thing I haven't
done is given you a chance to wind up with what you feel were the
successes, and failures if there were any, of your tenure on the board.
114
Charles: Well, there were plenty of those; but let me think about that further,
and then you can use a little piece of tape sometime, if you have a
little piece left on there.
Morris: All right. Fine, good.
[A serious heart attack in 1975 prevented Mrs. Charles from
completing her summary of her foundation experience , but further
interviews are planned at a later date to record an account of her
other activities, including the Stanford University board of
trustees and public broadcasting policy-making.]
115
Appendix - The President's Message, Rosenberg Foundation Annual Report, 1973
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Q
^_}ince 1935, when the Rosenberg Foundation was established, California
has grown from a population of seven million to nearly twenty-one million.
Its rural character has given way to urban concentrations. The State is the
scene of vast technological advances. Its unique combination of Spanish-
background, Asian, black and white peoples with their varied heritages and
the flooding of youth into the State makes California especially conscious of
rising aspirations which now encircle the world.
During the three years that have elapsed since the issuance of a tradi
tional Rosenberg Foundation Report, the staff and board have been assessing
these social changes (as well as the administrative requirements of the Tax
Reform Act of 1969) and their effects on our granting program. In 1972 we
arrived at some new policies which still retain our traditional limitation of
funding only within California and for the well-being of children and youth.
The new policies recognize that current knowledge emphasizes two
periods which are particularly significant in youthful lives: the earliest years,
and those of adolescence — an uncertain length of time in which the young
person attempts within the strong currents of today's swift changes to
become an adult. Applications accepted by the Foundation are presently
limited to programs which meet certain criteria and relate to these two stages
of development.
Although the Foundation has always been interested in "innovative"
programs, artificial, contrived or unnecessary innovation has no appeal for
the board of directors. Applications of traditional agencies attempting to
break out of obsolete practices to meet new circumstances or to make fresh
approaches to older but unsolved problems are welcomed where they come
within the new guidelines. But the Foundation also recognizes the legitimacy
of supporting new institutions where these alternative forms have better
access to a clientele or offer an approach which merits demonstration.
During the 1960's and into the 1970's the Foundation's board and staff
have worked together to try to sense the kinds of changes which were taking
place because of the upsurge of youth in the country's population. Granting
procedures were modified to give a more hospitable entry to our young
applicants. We particularly wanted to help those who had begun to help
themselves, and we hoped to be their partners as they learned to handle both
financing and programs responsibly.
116
Many of these projects are happy ones — exuberant and full of hope. But
the eloquent essay which constitutes the main portion of this 1973 Report is
concerned with a serious social problem from which society often chooses to
avert its eyes. Today's young transient - in California and throughout the
country — comes frequently from a background which is spare both finan
cially and emotionally. He (for the large majority is male) typically does not
have the education or the skills or work experience to compete in a tight
labor market. He is often a veteran. Street life ages him prematurely (as the
photographs show). His health, the possibility of his living within the law are
in jeopardy. Since several of our grants are attempting to deal with this
problem, we decided to take a further step and invite two gifted young
people — one a graceful writer with a scholarly as well as working knowledge
of his subject, and the other a young artist in photography - to produce a
photographic essay delineating the young transients' situation. We are deeply
grateful to our young collaborators for their excellent study.
Foundations with their limited money cannot hope to solve a problem as
•extensive and severe as that of the young transient. But small pilot programs
such as those described in the essay can begin the network of services needed
both regionally and nationally to move toward more comprehensive solu
tions. We hope this essay can be one factor in starting discussions among
foundations and government agencies which will result in cooperative efforts
to recognize the plight and the promise of these young transients.
As I leave the presidency and the board I want to acknowledge with
affection and respect the stimulation and growth which came from board
and staff discussions as the Foundation sought to allocate its money wisely,
guided by the many advisers to whom we are indebted. Foundations exist to
help people of vision and competence put their plans into effect more easily.
Among the best recollections of these past three years are the conviction and
ardor which young people brought to their work.
Since my own retirement from the board coincides with that of Ruth
Chance, our executive director for the past fifteen years, it is only fitting
that I express on behalf of the board our realization of what her stewardship
has meant to the Rosenberg Foundation and to all of those who have been
recipients of her wisdom and courage in this world of foundation operation.
CAROLINE M. CHARLES
(MRS. ALLAN E.CHARLES)
117
10. LECTURER IN COMMUNITY SERVICE, MILLS COLLEGE, 1949-1959
[Interview 4: 19 September 1977 ]##
Influence of President Lynn White
Morris: We were going to start today with your career at Mills. I
wondered how you came to talk with Lynn White about teaching
a course in community service at Mills College?
Charles: Lynn White and I belonged to a great many worthy organizations here
in San Francisco so I saw him frequently as a friend. Al and I
have always known him and thought very highly of him. He's a
very interesting person, as you know. At the World Affairs
Council, one day he got me off in a corner and said, "I want
to talk to you for a few minutes." He started telling me at
some length about how he'd thought for some years that there
ought to be a course for seniors at Mills on doing the kind of
community work that I did and so many of the women I knew did.
He said he'd been looking around to decide who could do it, and
he'd been asking around, and he'd come to the decision that I
was the person who could do it if I would.
I was absolutely astounded. I had to try and absorb into
my mind what he was saying to me because the idea of being
entirely professional was the last thing that would ever have
occurred to me. And I said, "Lynn, I don't have any credentials
for college teaching." And he said, "You don't need them. A
college professor is someone the president of the university
thinks is qualified to teach." So, he said, "Don't worry about
it. We want to be sure that the course is academically sound, and
is challenging to the students."
And, of course, I agreed with that because I wasn't going
to be a party to teaching anything that made me a laughing stock
on the campus. So, anyway, I came home and thought about it, and
my family all thought that I had misunderstood him, and that it
was really kind of a crazy idea.
118
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Your family thought that you had misunderstood him?
Yes, the children and Al weren't sure what I was talking about.
It never crossed their minds that I knew enough to teach
anything.
Was it the World Affairs Council particularly, and the kind of
work that they were doing, that Dr. White thought would be — ?
No, it had nothing to do with that. It was just that he had been
thinking, as he always was, and he wrote several books about that
time about educating' girls.* He thought that all girls should be
inspired to do the kinds of community work that certain women did
already. But that a lot of them might not realize how important
it was.
How old were your daughters at that time?
They were not college age yet. They were in high school, I
think.
Had you thought about this at all in relation to your own
daughters?
No, no. They were not the same kind of girls. He was thinking
particularly of young women at Mills, about what they could learn
to help put their education to work much closer to home. I
didn't see any evidence of that need in my own girls. Then there
were the other kinds that were worrying him who didn't think there
was any objective in life but to get married. There was a lot
of that then because it was —
Right after World War II.
Yes. And they felt, I suppose, that sense of desperation, that
all the young men were disappearing and how were they going to
find a husband.
Yes. That's right, World War II was just over, and while you
were teaching we were involved in the Korean conflict.
Let me see. I went over there and started teaching in '48.
it certainly was an aftermath of the other war, that still
carried over to the young ladies.
But
Educating Our Daughters; A Challenge to the Colleges,
Lynn Townsend White, Harper, 1950.
119
Morris: Dr. White was concerned that some of his students never thought
of using what they learned at Mills close to home?
Charles: Yes. They didn't realize how much the community benefited by
what a woman could do. I was pleased when he told me that he'd
asked Mrs. Mclaughlin who of the next younger group he should
approach, and she had recommended me. He quoted her as saying,
"As a person who would welcome the idea of thinking about why
she was doing what she was doing." Because I was doing a lot
of volunteer work.
Morris: Had you ever talked with him about what you were doing in
community work?
Charles: No. But he was quite an acute observer, you know, and he knew
a lot more than you thought about what was going on in different
places .
Morris : You said you and he were members of a number of the same
organizations. How did he find the time to belong to a number
of organizations and run Mills College?
Charles: Well, he was very well liked. Most people who were involved in
the teaching profession, or even the academic world, never venture
out into the local community. It's a great deprivation to the
community that they don't. Lynn is much more perceptive than
most academic people I know, and he exacted from himself what
he thought academic people could be doing, I think.
The World Affairs Council had been a pioneer in the art
of persuading the college professors to come over and use their
skills in teaching — let's not use the word "teaching" — consorting
with the average citizen, so that when the question of governmental
problems or foreign affairs came up, they coild speak of it with
some academic background that would increase the knowledge of the
citizen.
Morris: Was the World Affairs Council at all sending speakers, say, over
to Mills as resources to classes and things like that?
Charles: Perhaps. But Mills and U.C. and Stanford professors were coming
over and becoming part of the World Affairs Council operation.
The council was planned on a basis of study groups, you know, and
we needed people to conduct them who were skillful and
knowledgeable. It was all volunteer work, there was no pay
involved. But it worked extremely well.
Morris: It must have. I had read a study that a graduate student at
Cal did on the first years of the World Affairs Council; it really
120
Morris: impressed me as to the variety of activities.*
Charles: Exactly, they really did. It was marvellous. It was a revival
in a way of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Those people
who had been closely involved with that were the ones who realized
that there ought to be some kind of an organization concerning
itself with foreign affairs in the local community. And got to
work on this, and managed to get some of us younger ones to come
in.
Morris: Were you doing some of the study sessions?
Charles: Oh, no. I was at the other end. I was always the person with
organizational skills, and administrative skills, aid I would
organize groups to carry on these things. [Mrs. Charles added
the following passage when reviewing the transcript]
Dorothy Rogers, Vern Williams, Lister Rogers, was the
organizing spirit for the W.A.C. — she would gather some of
us together to help in preparing lunches for the noon meetings
of the fledgling Council. Dorothy had her own style (as do
all good organizers) and I want to mention that in these
activities the chief organizer should not be challenged. Of
course, ideas are welcomed, but not a complete takeover.
Every person who has an organizing place is not able to
put it all into words. He or she needs to carry it out with
corrections and embellishments that strike her as right as you
go along. And so with Dorothy. I did her dirty work and swept
out and washed dishes (something I hated to do at home).
Dorothy's lunches were delicious, roasts — something that
a business man (whom we wanted to attract to the Council) could
tuck away and feel well fed and come again. It was always a
goal for these voluntary efforts to pull in as many men as
possible as if that were the crowning success — we were
different — in those days in our first efforts at women's
freedom, so to speak, we believed in and liked men, we wanted
them with us in our efforts — at any rate, Dorothy's creative
lunches were successful, and it wasn't long until it was possible
to hire a cook for the Council (which relied heavily on food at its
meetings) with volunteers doing the serving and clearing. This
was an important part of the Center's growth and success!
"World Affairs Are Your Affairs," Judson A. Grenier, submitted
in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Journalism, University of California, Berkeley, 1954.
121
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
[Transcript resumes]
So, how did you decide that you would do the course for Len
White?
Well, it interested me enormously, and I always like to try my hand
at something new if I can. It was a marvellous chance for me as
a housewife to come out of the kitchen and have an experience in
a classroom again, for instance. I had taught for a year in a
junior high school in Stockton where I went home during the year
I was waiting when Al and I were going to be married the next
year.
You liked that experience?
Well, I had a strange experience. I don't want to use up our time
on it because it really isn't very relevant. But, the
superintendent of schools in Stockton was very resentful of my
getting engaged or married. He didn't approve of it at all.
And so, when he heard that having found a place for me in the
city schools that I had then gotten engaged he came and took my
poor father over the coals about my bad behavior in doing that.
We have forgotten those days when marriage was such a flagrant
outrage as far as a working career went, and teachers weren't
allowed to marry for a long time. Just like stewardesses, as
we have seen. It just seems incredible.
He expected you to stay in Stockton and teach forever.
Exactly. And he felt that I had taken somebody's place as a
teacher in Stockton, a natural feeling.
Did Dr. White just turn you loose with the class?
Yes, he never interfered with it. And I realized it was a very
valuable experience for me, even though I did not know of course
that I was going to be a Stanford trustee some day. When I was,
I knew exactly how the professors felt about having any
interference from anybody as to what they taught. It was their
integrity in teaching a subject — any subject — that shouldn't,
be interfered with, One had that feeling very strongly.
Theory and Practice of Volunteering
Morris: How did you go about preparing that first course?
Charles: What I did was to start thinking about what made you valuable as
122
Charles: a community person. What things you might emphasize with
college seniors about to go out in the world, that they could
start learning in college. And I then really divided it into
five segments; not segments to be taught in sequence, but five
topics to be covered as you went along. I felt they ought to
know something about the history of volunteer work, and they
ought to know something about the history of women, and the
problems that women have faced and are facing in gaining
independence. I felt they ought to know how city government
is organized, and they ought to have some idea about kinds of
organizations that work in the community.
Morris: What we now call the private sector?
Charles: Yes. Let me see, I thought they ought to be very careful to be
aware of their own situations, too, in how much work they should
take on, and how it wouldn't interfere with their family life
because, as I pointed out to them, husbands are all different,
and some could tolerate a lot of that and some couldn't tolerate
any of it. And they would have to go at it very carefully to see
where their husbands fitted into the picture; and to be absolutely
honest abouttheir own available time and energy, in order not to
deprive their homes of what they really owed to them, or had
promised when they got married. You see, I was old-fashioned.
Morris: Were the girls in the class primarily ones who were already
engaged and thinking in terms of marriage immediately?
Charles: No. Many of them went on — I haven't really had a wide
experience of hearing from them, but occasionally I do. Many
of them never married, but went on in community careers on the
side of being employed. It may have been changed to some
extent what they chose to make their life's work.
Morris: Did you see it as kind of a counseling relationship?
Charles: Yes, I really did. You see, I planned the course so that they
would spent at least one day a week in doing actual volunteer
work somewhere in Oakland where it was near enough to the college
that they could go and get a little supervision and learn what
it was all about. Before the year started I went around in Oakland
to see the agencies — because I know San Francisco well, you know,
but I did not know what Oakland had to offer, and Berkeley.
And so I found different organizations that would be willing to let
the students come in, and seemed to me to understand something about
how you use volunteers, which is important too.
Morris: I should say so. Which organizations did you find — ?
Charles: I will generalize. One was a child-caring institution of some sort
123
Charles: (I've forgotten which one), and also, I think, those having to do
with young children were likely to be the most available. One
thing I wanted to teach my volunteers was that they had the right
as volunteers to be able to state well in advance how much time
they had to give and have it understood that they would not be
imposed on for more time than they had available. Because this
would always be their problem. Most volunteers don't think it
through well enough in advance. They'll take on a volunteer job,
and then in the middle decide it is too much for them without
having warned anybody that they might not be able to do it,
and making enemies for themselves and for volunteers in general.
[Mrs. Charles added the following passage when reviewing
the transcript] One thing I always tried to emphasize to the
class was the need to do or not do. Right now I am reading a
most marvellous book re that subject entitled The Life of the Mind
by Hannah Arendt.* It is most exciting to me when I find an
academic person affirming their own day to day observations. I
used to say to the students, "You do not graduate from college
in order to gain freedom from thinking." Everything you do,
every person you meet, benefits from the thought you give to
what you are doing. Life itself, your personal relations, and
your community relations deserve as much thought as does ancient
history or chemistry or physics, or whatever thought seems to be
logically expanded on in college. Miss Arendt makes a very
interesting point — in fact many of them. But I was taken by her
separation of the word con-science which she analyzes as
weaving one's own understanding and belief into con-science — is
what I believe I have always tried to do, to make a thought or
a purpose my own before asceeding to it. Miss Arendt, who came
to this concern by reason of observing the Eichmann trial in
Germany and realizing that he had evidently given no thought at
all to the things that he did under orders. She wonders if "evil"
is really the observer of thought before action.
[Transcript resumes]
That's a very tricky relation, I think.
Very difficult, but it needs to be thought about a good deal.
And then I used my San Francisco relationships to have people I
knew well and who had been in the work for years come over and
talk to the students about what they had been doing. I don't
know whether you remember Alice Griffith —
Morris: The Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Association.
Morris:
Charles :
Har court Brace Jovanovich, 1978.
124
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles;
Morris:
The Telegraph Hill, and her friend Miss Elizabeth Ashe.
Yes. 1 had a number, of course, of amusing anecdotes from
the class, and one was: I had explained to the students that
Miss Elizabeth Ashe had decided early in her career in trying
to organize the child and family welfare centers in Telegraph
Hill, that she needed more training. She thought she needed
nurse's training, she told the students. She was about thirty
when she and Miss Griffith started all this work — and she went
back to school for a couple of years and became a nurse in order
to have that credential, in order to know what she was
recommending for these people.
Whenever I would have my community workers over to talk
to the students, I would spend the next session of class, part
of it, in asking for student reactions to the talks. And at
that time one of the students said, "Mrs. Charles, when that
lady said she went back to study being a nurse when she was
thirty, I said to myself, it's never too late!" [Laughs] And
I said to her, "Well, that's a good thing for you to observe
and remember. It is never too late to learn what you think you
need to know."
The women who started the Telegraph Hill Association were not
professionally trained?
They were college- trained, yes. And you know, I look back —
I think I'm finally going to write that book on volunteer
work that Lynn White had begged me to write when I was teaching
over there. Right now, in the present, some young women have
come to me to find out what to do because they say they can't
get volunteers the way they used to. They think something's
gone out of it. My age group that started their volunteer work
in the '30s and '40s did not realize how closely on the heels
we were of those women of passion and dedication, those young
college women of the '90s who got the first taste of freedom;
it all went with that I think. To me, the '90s and the early
part of this century with the wasp waists — which we know were
not good for anybody's health but were one of the very
attractive ways for women to dress — the pompadour and the rather
fluffy clothes. They were a gay, attractive lot.
They were also the suffragettes —
Indeed they were, looking for the vote. And California had
gotten the vote, you know, earlier than anybody else did. It
was 1911.
You're right, California got the vote for women before the rest
of the country.
125
Charles: Many years before the rest, and this made the young women here,
I think, feel their freedom even more to go out and take part in
the life of the city, and try to reform the government where
they thought that needed to be done, or to find new means of
caring for the poor, or the deprived. And they formed their own
organizations — nothing stopped them. What they had was passion.
When I used to be making my speeches on volunteer work, I
loved to quote a phrase I found in Oliver Wendell Holmes'
letters, "The action and passion of our times, to be part of
the action and the passion of our times."
That was the way I felt aboutit when I went into it, that
I was a part of the action and the passion. But I was talking
to my daughter Jean about it, and Jean said, "Mother, the
passion's gone out of it." She said, "I remember you when you
were doing it, you did feel passionately about what you were
doing." And although we didn't start as many new organizations
as those women did, we adopted their feelings as soon as we got
involved in the community, child-caring institutions or into
struggles with the city government.
Mrs. McLaughlin had a marvellous story about — I can just
visualize her as a young woman, all of them, so beautiful, you
know, and thrilled with life because of their freedom of
having gotten into college and out again with their college
education. They were able to conquer the world, having the
vote and having accomplished that which was moving along here
in the West, in California, for a long time, and finally came
to fruition with the passage of women's right to vote.*
Morris: That spirit carried on through your generation, and then what
happened to it?
Charles: And now it looks as if what we talked about — You know, there
is something spiritual that goes into the work of volunteers,
some sense of fulfilling your purpose on earth, whatever it
may be. William James, and many, many theologians, philosphers,
and psychologists, in trying to analyze why people do what they
do, realize that dedicated daily work must be attached to some
feeling within yourself of more permanent part of yourself that
is being satisfied, by doing this work. Not just what the
practical results are. And that love is an important part
of it.
See Emma Moffat McLaughlin, A Life in Community Service,
Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, 1970.
126
Charles: I haven't really thought it through yet, but so many young
people will say, "Why should I vote? They never elect the
person I vote for." Well, the point is we didn't measure it
that way in our generation. We voted — we did what needed to
be done, and took our part in democratic government, which
can't exist unless all citizens take their part. And whether
the person was elected or not (of course it was disappointing
if he weren't), at least we have fulfilled our obligation to be
citizens and do our work.
I think we transmitted that sense without being so
specific about it, because Americans, and perhaps not only
Americans, hate to talk about spiritual values, you know. It
embarrasses them, they always sound and feel hypocritical.
Also, we're conscious of note seeming to have any religious
aspect to what we're doing for fear that we would be accused
of involving ourselves in trying to proselyte different religions.
So we steer clear of that always. We talk around it.
When I would make my speeches I wouldn't talk directly about
satisfying spiritual needs by doing volunteer work, but I would
say then, our own woman's natures seem to require of us that we
give part of ourselves to others if we're going to be happy.
And we would find that we suffered if we didn't do that. I
believed that, and my observations concurred, many people are
unhappy who don't know what's the matter with themselves at
all.
Morris: In the years that you were teaching at Mills, could you talk
about the spiritual values without having the girls in the
class look embarrassed?
Charles: Yes. They weren't embarrassed, but I didn't talk about it in
that way. I talked about our own inner needs. I used to have
a very amusing time in class because we'd get into long arguments
about such ridiculous things as — I would say, "Well, of course,
when you're bringing up your own children, they're all different."
Some student would say, "Oh, Mrs. Charles, that's not correct.
I learned just this morning in a child-development class that
the same parents are bringing them up and they're really not
all different." I would say, "Well, you write me when you have
children and tell me whether they are or not. That's all,
you just prove it yourself." It seemed in their child
development class, which they were probably misintepreting,
they understood that the same treatment on the part of the
parents would have the same effect on each child.
When I thought of myself teaching I thought, "My word, I
just don't know enough." But of course, the first thing
127
Charles: you find is that simply having lived twenty years longer than
these young people you know enough to teach them a few things.
But, of course, I didn't leave it at that. I had prepared myself
well with the kinds of things I wanted them to learn.
Morris: Was it primarily the theory of volunteer organization in the
community, or was it the practical — ?
Charles: It was both ends of it. That was what I was trying to combine:
the feeling for what they would get from it and what they could
do. I wanted them to know that the city can't get along without
their help, the citizen's help, and that the citizen really
can't get along without giving that help. And I can say, I
have no sympathy with anybody who comes to me complaining about
what government does. When I ask if they have attempted to do
anything about it, "Oh," they say, "What's the use of attempting
to do anything about it. What's the use. Oh, no." If that's
what they say, then I don't intend to waste my energy on them.
When you have organizations like the League of Women Voters
and other organizations that take an interest in government at
any and every level, you have no excuse for not making your own
wishes known. But, of course, your wish alone isn't enough.
You have to find if there are others who feel as you do. And
see if you all can work together. "You have to use your
common sense," that's what I keep saying to them, about how
to get these things done.
'
I really had a most enjoyable time. You know, just being
with young people is an invigorating experience.
Morris: How many young women would have signed up for a course like
this? Brand new in the college.
Charles: I was awfully lucky because I always had small classes like
fifteen or twenty. Mills was a smallish school, and many of
the classes were very small. But mine, where I had to do
something personal for each girl, such as getting her placed
in a volunteer agency, were smaller.
Morris: And supervising the placement.
Charles: Yes, in a congenial atmosphere for her volunteer work, and seeing
where she was in her thinking. That took considerable time.
You know, Mills has a great many students from other nations.
The State Department was very anxious to get these students
into college and to get them through. They brought, for
instance, a great many Asiatic young women who were in our
courses at Mills. And I remember a beautiful young woman from
Burma wno just could not see what the point of volunteer
128
Charles: work was. You could see that she came from a very wealthy
family. I got very exercised about the language difficulty
because they couldu't understand — they could understand the
English but they couldn't understand the meaning of what you
were saying. And I would try to tell them what I was talking
about, realizing I wasn't getting across at all because it was
so different from anything they knew.
Morris: In Asia there has been little volunteer effort as we know it.
Is that correct?
Charles: Yes, I believe so. It's something they don't understand.
And I would say, when you're a real volunteer, you would
do anything. If you had to sweep out the place, as I did when
the World Affairs Council started —
Morris: Is this kind of a basic operating principle? In order to run
an organization, you have to be willing to do all the chores — ?
Charles: Well, I think in order to be a decent volunteer you have to.
I often was asked to come in to some voluntary organization
at the top, and I would always decline. I would explain to
them I wanted only to come in if I felt that I were fully
apprised of their activities, and I could go in as a volunteer
in their day-to-day operations.
Morris: The girls who came to your class, by and large had they had any
kind of volunteer experience?
Charles: Some of them had done quite a little bit in high school,
wherever they came from. One of the things I always asked
them to do was to write me a paper on their own home town
and what there was to be done there and whether they had
ever had any experience. It was surprising how much they
had done. I don't think it was called volunteer work. It was
certainly the all-pervading feeling of putting effort into what
you believed in. And I should say that I think the word
"volunteerism" is just too hideous to be used.
[Mrs. Charles added the following passage when
reviewing the transcript] The word "volunteerism" places
the emphasis wrongly. I have often expressed my indignation
at being called "a professional volunteer." Its implication
is that one buzzes around doing so-called volunteer work,
whether it is needed or not, and whether you understand what
you are doing! Of course you can be a perpetual "do-gooder,"
not an endearing term and that is why I continually try to
remind community workers that they must think about what they
129
Charles: are doing and bring con-science to it, in the sense that
Hannah Arendt expresses it. Sometimes people who try to
analyze from the outside in, have a hard time understanding
the true motivatiou of certain activities.
What is very necessary is that when we believe there is
a need to be met, then some organizing skills are needed to
make it work. For instance, one of the newest of our
voluntary efforts has been in the area of assistance
inside the public schools. The School Resource Volunteers,
as they are called here in San Francisco, have been able to
assist in the classrooms because of preliminary work to
enlist the cooperation and support of teachers and administrators
that has, I believe, gained their confidence in the ability of
citizen-volunteers to assist them without conflict. They make
every effort to ensure that everyone understands that the
primary responsibility in the classroom is the teacher's.
The organization is a buffer between the volunteer and
the institution, and can be very important in that role. But
the idea that the volunteer is accumulating "brownie points"
to gain a more distinguished role is a poor one and such
volunteers need to be concerned lest they destroy their own
success.
[Transcript resumes]
Morris: Have you got a new name for volunteering?
Charles: I really haven't but I think it ought to be something to do
with citizenship, good citizenship. Because volunteerism, or
volunteer work, is not just the act of going into some place
and donating your time. It's first having some understanding
of why you are doing that. And it's just go so they analyze
and codify it to death. They've got all the rules of behavior
you need, and that sort of thing, whereas there's no attempt
to understand what it's all about and where it came from.
Morris: I guess you're thinking of things like folding bandages or
wheeling the cart of orange juice.
Charles: No — I mean any kind. Any kind of day-to-day volunteer work
is filled with irritations. After all, you're dealing with
human beings, and you have to have some feeling of love for
your fellow man that makes you want to do these things. And
your sense of your own fortunate position is important. That's
why volunteers need to be brought together periodically to
discuss what they're doing and why.
130
Cnaries: When I used to be working in the San Francisco General Hospital,
we had a marvelous director of volunteers, a wonderful woman,
Mrs. Clifton, who was so full of love you couldn't see her
coming down the corridor without realizing what it must
mean to some of those really deprived people to come in and
see this lovely, warm face and demeanor, and ambience, coming
towards them. Everything she did out there conveyed that; it
was perfectly lovely. Many of these patients didn't know or
hadn't known for a long time what a feeling of caring or love
was. They'd never had it anywhwere. There she was. Now,
many people aren't able to do that sort of thing, you have to
do what you can do. Work within the limitations of your own
ability.
That's why it's very important when you agree to do a
volunteer job to say, "I want to reserve for myself the
opportunity, the ability to be able to say to you, 'This is not
for me. I would like to try another aspect of what you're
doing here.'" So, the interviewers in voluntary organizations,
if the volunteer herself doesn't understand that they'll have
to make it clear to her that they know that they might give
her things that were not agreeable to her temperament, and
that she would have to come and tell them and try something
else, and see what was better.
Morris: I'm interested that you included knowing something about
government in the major things you taught.
Charles: Oh, you bet. Because city government — Often your
dissatisfactions with what is going on in your community
go back to the government, and an understanding of how it
operates, if you're going to be able to have some say about it.
Morris: This is something I would like to come back to another day.
Charles: Yes, fine, we'll do that.
Morris: Maybe that would be a good place to stop for today.
##
131
Staff Standing
[Interview 5: 3 October 1977] ##
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles;
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles;
What I also want to ask you about teaching at Mills was how the
faculty responded?
I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised. I had had
enough sense to realize that I was invading territory for which
I was not qualified, or at least I didn't think I was. Lynn
White kept assuring me the only qualification I needed was his
idea that I was qualified, which I thought was pretty tenuous.
But the whole faculty treated me most graciously. I never
even attempted to attend faculty meetings, or that sort of
thing.
What department were you attached to?
Let me think what it was. The wrong department, whatever it
was. He didn't know where to put it, and I think it was in
domestic science or something. And then later I think they
started a sociology department, and it was transferred there
which was probably a more logical place for it. I'm not sure
but that was probably where it was. I just don't remember.
Were there any particular faculty people that you did develop
a working relationship with?
No, because, you know, I was a commuter. I commuted over there
and allowed time after my class for any students who wanted to
see me, that sort of thing — anybody who wanted to see me.
Did students take advantage of that?
Oh, no, not frequently, but infrequently they did.
Occasionally I would suggest it, come and talk to me.
Especially when I had a student who had the brains but just
wouldn't do the work. Gee, that drives you crazy, you know.
I can understand how faculty members feel about that because
you see a person with all the ability in the world without
any training or knowledge.
Did you have many girls like that?
I had several, from more or less comfortable families who
132
Charles;
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Chrales :
were involved in a bit of snobbery, you know. They were hard
to deal with, for me. So, I'd just say what I had to say and
forget it.
Did they do well in the course generally?
Comme si comme 53. No, most of them hadn't read anything. What
they knew they'd gotten from the air, and whatever I said. But
I had reference books for them to read, which I thought would
widen their scope — would have if they would have read it.
Before we get into the reading list you wanted them to do — I
wondered if you were a paid member of the faculty?
I was paid a thousand dollars a year, which Al said just about
paid for my commuting. [Laughs] And I appreciated it. It was
wonderful because my generation was very different from this one
coming alone. I hadn't had any real money I could call my own,
except of course I've always had a very generous husband, but
even so it doesn't make up for not having something that you
can decide on, spending with a clear conscience. So I loved
that thousand dollars. I felt as rich as I don't know who. It
was very helpful in the family because Al had just got this
property in Woodside — he had enough money to buy it, to buy
the land and build the house, and then he had nothing to furnish
it with. So I just used my money to get the essentials of
furniture that could see us through for a year. Because I
felt, I've always felt that he's been very generous with his
wife and daughters, and it's up to me to be sure I manage well.
[interruption for tea]
In any case, I was a paid member of the faculty.
And in addition to feeling good about having money of your own,
did that give you any sense that this was more important than
other work you did?
Yes, it certainly did. It gave the feeling of a certain kind of
success. In any case, a recognition anyway, that I had never
had before.
Was that about the same level that other faculty were being
paid, do you know.
Oh, no, no. I tell you, there's a category in the academic
world called "lecturers." That's what I was. You are paid
whatever the school feels it can afford, or whatever you can
afford to accept. The other faculty positions have scales of
pay.
133
Freedom of Choice and Leadership Potential
Morris: One of the things that Lynn White mentioned when I was talking
with him was the business of academic kinds of courses versus
non-academic .
Charles: Yes. I worked very hard to have reference books that would fall
in the academic world, and assign them pages of them. Such as,
there's quite a good history of social work; I can't remember
now the name of it. I think I can find that book list. That
gave them a sense of what had happened in England when the
industrial age came in and people began to realize how poor
the so-called, what we would have called in ages past the
peasants, were. They had nothing, and they were worse off
in the industrial age. They were paid pathetically little.
And then that whole movement moved over to the United States,
and I think that was the revival of our feeling for volunteer
work. I say revival because I think that care for one's
neighbor was an inherent part of what happened when these
people first came to this country, and it is what volunteer
work really is. Caring for those with less than you have.
And a feeling of responsibility for doing that.
I think the way I interested the students — it's not easy to
keep students interested in people of my age, you know — but I
interested them by giving them a good many anecdotes of things
that had happened to me that were amusing, and little insights
that I had into the way people behaved in certain ways. So I
would get them to watch for that in their lives. For instance,
I have always felt it was important for people to realize that
we should not try to draw our friends into the same kind of
volunteer work that we do, or at least under our supervision,
because friendship is too delicate and important a thing in
our lives to jeopardize by putting people in a situation where
they might be called to account by a friend.
I have made many friends in volunteer work, people I've
met doing the same work, but I have never tried to turn my
friends into workers.
Morris: That's an interesting distinction. So that generally you felt
that the friends that you started out your married life with were
not particularly interested in the work of volunteers?
Charles: Yes, right. And I didn't put any urging on them at all. They
knew what I was doing, and if they were interested, why, of course,
we'd be glad to help them. And you see, the whole Junior
League idea of analyzing volunteer work and making it into
134
Charles: something that you could lay down rules for, came from the
realization that neighbors are no longer the poor of any
community. You're segregated economically too severely to
be able to just go round your neighborhood and find the
people in need.
Morris : As you could in the early days?
Charles : Yes .
Morris: The kind of church welfare idea of looking after the poor in
the parish.
Charles: Yes.
Morris: Were there any other books particularly that you remember as
being helpful?
Charles: I was very anxious for them to read the books about what women
were going through at the present time, and how this thing could
influence their decisions as to what they wanted to do with their
own lives.
Morris: I was wondering if it were books written in the forties?
Charles: No, no. Some of these were very old books. This was '49 that
I started teaching. Oh no, it might be fifty years before. It
was the time all this movement was taking place.
Morris: The suffragists, and the literature on women getting the vote.
Charles: Yes. And also the care for the poor had never really been
recognized as much as it needed to be.
Morris: This is literature on settlement houses, and things of tnat
kind.
Charles: Yes, right.
Morris: You've mentioned a couple of times, the idea of religious
underpinnings to volunteer work. And I wonder how you would
go about discussing that in an academic course.
Charles: I just said that I felt we each had something in us that demanded
a voice in our lives, and it was the need to do something for
others. Not to live alone for ourselves.
Morris:
Was this something that you had gotten from church in your — ?
135
Morris
Charles;
Charles: No, I don't think — well, I may have but I haven't gotten it in
those words in church, but it's what I really believe myself.
I tried very hard to sit down with myself and work out my own
beliefs about these things, so that when I spoke to the students
what I said was absolutely sincere. You know, it's terribly
important with young people to be speaking what is the truth
to you. Because they can detect that very quickly.
Do you remember how the students responded to that idea?
Sometimes religion is hard to talk about.
Yes. It never got turned into religion, but they were all
very supportive of that idea because I think that the determination
of women — the need for women's freedom was the sap that was
just coming up to fruition. And that even though the
suffragettes accomplished certain things, then it seemed to
go under for awhile, it came up again in us, with our
appreciation of the chance to get out of our homes and do
volunteer work, and really select what we wanted to do.
Morris: In the way of volunteer work?
Charles: In the way of volunteer work. I was talking to a friend of mine
the other day and she said, "I've never forgotten my exhilaration
when I heard about this 'volunteer work.' The exhilaration that
I was now about to be truly free to choose something to do that
I wanted to do."
Morris: In the class work, did you talk with the women about what
possible choices there were?
Charles: Oh my, yes. That was what we did talk about. But, you know,
a great many people have thought the course would' be, or perhaps
should be, conducted on the basis of visiting speakers. But
many people don't know how to talk to young people without
talking down to them, or being a bit sententious in a way that
the young don't like. And it really was a great waste of time,
I felt. Even some of the most gifted people in the volunteer
picture were not suited to speaking to young people.
Morris: You mentioned that you did try visiting speakers.
Charles: Indeed I did try some at first. But I abandoned it because I
decided the time was being wasted. It was better for me to
tell the students what these women did, then have them come
another time and tell what they did without any philosophizing
or theorizing of the subject.
Morris :
They'd just come and do a straight factual —
136
Charles: Yes, they'd come and the students could ask how they managed
Telegraph Hill Neighborhood House, for instance. But I
repeatedly told the young people that they must use every bit
of their wits in functioning in this voluntary field, and
that they needed to pay attention and observe and sense how
people felt, and not take advantage of it, or tread on things
that bothered them. I pointed out that each person has his
sensitivities and we need to detect what they are.
Morris: Are they different in different kinds of community organizations?
Charles: They're different in different kinds of people. And I would say
that they don't always run through an organization, but some
people are very sensitive about religion, as you say, and some
people are very sensitive about politics. They're the old
things that we all know you should never discuss.
Morris: Religion and politics. [Laughs]
Charles: Yes. There's a lot of truth in it, of course. Because it may
get too close to them, a lot of people won't allow you to get
that close to them.
Morris: I was going to ask if you exposed your students to organizations
like the League of Women Voters — ones that can give you an
overview of different possibilities in volunteer work.
Charles: Indeed I did. We sort of yanked them into volunteer work as a
sort of an afterthought, because it really began to be what you
might call "welfare work." And then I realized that all of this—
even when we went to vote, we were giving our time as volunteers
to our country. Nobody was paying us to do that.
Morris: I've been reading Arlene Daniels' preliminary article on her
study.* She makes the point that there is quite a difference
between the service kind of the welfare organization and some
thing like the League.
Charles: That's true. And many people are not suited to our sort of
thing at all, and find themselves very unhappy. And I've always
tried to warn people starting to work as volunteers to give
themselves a short term to start with, because they have to fid
find out whether it is something they could manage to handle.
"The Place of Volunteerism in the Lives of Women," Arlene
Kaplan Daniels, Report for NIMH Grant //MH26294-01, 1975,
Program on Women, Northwestern University.
137
Morris: Did the students in the class after talking about this with you,
develop a sense of what their own skills might be?
Charles: I thought so. One of them amused me very much. She had
conducted a meeting of students from various other colleges
who had come to a joint meeting at Mills on some subject. And
she said, "Mrs. Charles, I just thought of what you told me,
to use my head and watch what was going on." She said, "There
was one boy who just never stopped talking, and he was driving
us all crazy. So I asked him to be the secretary of the
meeting, and it worked beautifully. He didn't have time to
talk any more." And I said, "That's just exactly the kind of
thing I want you to learn."
Morris: Are these kinds of techniques something that you can actually
teach, or do people have to learn them?
Charles: Well, they have to learn them by themselves, but you can
remind them of the kinds of things you're talking about. And
they can apply it to the situation they're in, in their own
creative way, if they will.
I had a list for them, something I called "pointers," that
were little things of that sort about how food at the beginning
of a meeting is a very important way to get people feeling
comfortable with each other. And also — I pointed out to them —
people are very uncomfortable, when they don't know who else
is in the audience, about opening their mouths about anything.
So you must start out by making clear who the others are,
andy why they are there, and something about their backgrounds
a little bit. So everybody feels they are talking in front of
people who would understand what they were talking about.
Morris: Did you do quite a lot of work in the course on meetings and
committees, and that kind of thing?
Charles: Yes, we talked about conducting meetings, and how it was best
done. I had a very nice letter from a woman I met several years
ago in a Junior League symposium of some kind of volunteer work,
and she was a parliamentarian. I have always thought that every
volunteer group ought to have a parliamentarian attached to it,
as a resource person. Because most of us really don't know
much about parliamentary law. We don't need it very often,
except at critical moments.
Morris: And then you need it desperately.
Charles: And then you really need it, so that I have always had a
parliamentarian at every meeting that I could feel was going
138
Charles: to be difficult. You usually can anticipate what your meeting
is going to be if you give a little thought to it. It should
never take you by surprise, to find that a meeting is becoming
difficult to handle. Because you should have some idea of the
personalities who are there, too, and you may have personality
problems which you have to solve on the basis of parliamentary
law.
One thing you learn when you're presiding at meetings is
that you you become angry, you lose the entire audience. You
can't hold them by sharp words going out to anybody in the
audience. If you really severely criticize a person in the
audience or correct him in a way that is unpleasant, you will lose
not only those people but everybody. They're looking for fair
play. That was the thing that stood me in good stead at
Stanford when I was on the board of trustees, and the students
created so much difficulty then. That was about 1960, I guess,
if I can remember correctly.
Of course, it took everybody completely by surprise because
during the fifties the students had been very unwilling to talk;
we wanted them to talk. We got our wishes on that, more than we
might have asked for. But it seemed to me that what those
students were looking for was to see how fair we would play with
the students who overstepped with violence. Because plenty of
them did; some of them wanted to test how far they could go.
They went too far in their protests. I used to remind the
board about that, and I remember hearing with some gratification
that the students were saying to each other that I was always
fair on the board. [Mrs. Charles added the following passage
when reviewing the transcript]
In those days I was on the lecture circuit. Mills College
alumnae clubs and volunteer organizations around the Bay Area
would invite me. "I love to talk about volunteer work," I would
begin my speeches. I was amazed to discover that I could speak
easily and well. I observed that when I knew what I was talking
about and the 3,024 points I wanted to make, I felt warm and
happy with my audience. In fact, these dedicated women in the
voluntary organizations were very appealing to me. I cannot
say how much I disapprove of the new word "volunteerism" or
the word "professional volunteer," which I heard once applied
to me and spoke sharply to the nice young woman who used it.
Both words and phrases suggest that a person just set out to
hold a volunteer career without concern for the particular
field in which she volunteered, or tryly wishing to help, which
downgrades the concept of volunteering. Most volunteers that I
have known have believed deeply in what they were doing, and
since have indeed learned professional skills in the field. But
139
Charles: the motivation is all important. For the rewards of volunteering
are to the larger need we each have, I believe, of being a
contributor to the welfare of others. Women need to feel this
sense of doing for others who cannot repay, I have observed,
for their development as persons. I have been reading a most
satisfying book on this. Dr. Jeanne Baker Miller offers the
most valid acceptable (to me) explanation of this need which,
she believes, is inherently in human-kind, certainly in men
as well as woman, but it is society that has decreed that men
should submerge this faculty, and women should emphasize it,
that is, the "caring" activities.* During these long years of
volunteer work, I have made some observations, and such is my
slavery to academic procedures, I am jubilant when I find that
academic research has come to the same conclusion. In deference
to Dr. Miller, I had not thought of that need being both male
and female, though I have known many men who had human sympathies
in a great profusion, but it was always a little submerged to
their business or profession.
[transcript resumes]
Career Possibilities
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
In talking with the students about this business of giving
yourself a test time in the organization to find out if it's
your kind of a thing, were they interested at all in talking
about how working in a volunteer organization is the kind of
a stepping stone, did they see their volunteer prospects as
a career?
Not very much, and I warned people about that. I think it's
very nice if it turns out that way, but I don't believe that
we can afford to go into it with the hope that it will bring
in a recompense of some kind later on in a career.
I wasn't thinking about it in a financial sense, I was thinking
about it in the sense of going through the chairs, as it were.
Or, if somebody coming into a volunteer job thinks of it in
terms of "what might I end up at in ten years?"
Jean Baker Miller, Toward a New Psychology of Women.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1976.
140
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles;
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Oh, I think that's very bad. I have tried very hard to make
people not cling to the idea that they're going to be rising
to the most important place there is in that organization.
I've seen more broken hearts over that sort of thing, because
it's very dependent on the other people in the organization.
If you do get moved along, you may earn it, but you may not
get it. The point is to make what you do every day worth the
doing, without counting it towards future glory. I have never
done that myself, and I'm glad I had the habit of not doing it.
I've never counted on any honors that I might get, though I've
been greatly honor.ed, and I've appreciated it terrifically.
But not because I never expected it. I really never did. I do
don't believe that we can afford to do what we do because we
think it will bring us some reward here on earth. That's what
I mean about the religious aspect. I think only because we
believe that it may help whatever it is working in.
That's true,
of ambition.
I was thinking about the other human characteristic
You have to quiet ambition a good deal in voluntary organizations,
because if a fellow volunteer detects your ambition to rise out
of their ranks, most of them become very wary of you. You have
to try to curb that thing.
Now that's interesting, because one of the current problems,
I gather, in many volunteer organizations, is finding people
who will take the leadership job.
Yes, well, it's always hard. You do have to persuade them
probably. But then it's better to persuade somebody who has
shown the qualifications than it is to have people moving in
on you who believe they have the qualification: "I'm going
to get it come hell or high water."
At what point does one decide how long one should stay with a
given organization?
Well, when you decide you're just not enjoying yourself or
giving what you want to give to people that way, it's time to
quit. Because it immediately becomes empty, what you're doing
becomes empty, you'll find yourself just coming back, putting
your work in and drifting a bit away from it. So that we do
need to evaluate our situation in life every now and then to
see where we are, and what we want.
I remember a very odd friend of mine who had a lot of
interesting ideas, and had studied all over the world with
all sorts of mystical people and I don't know what all, and
141
Charles: she said, "Every person should have love In his life, and work in
his life, and play in his life. And he needs to examiner which
each activity fulfills." I came home and thought about it; I
thought, "Now what do I do for play?" and what I discovered was,
what I do for play is my board meetings. I love them, because
they are a form a play, you know, when you know the ropes and
know what you are trying to accomplish, and know the characters,
and what's going to happen next. So. you don't need too much
more play if what you're doing falls into that category. What
you may need is something more like work to you.
Morris: Work being something you do — ?
Charles: A learning process of any kind, I would say, is what work is.
Morris: Had you developed these ideas already at the time you were teaching
at Mills College?
Charles: That particular idea, I think, came later, but I have always
been full of those little things, which I tried to pass on to
the students, which interested them a great deal. They loved
it; you could just see them putting it away to think about.
Morris: Can you tell me a bit more about your students' actual visits
in different types of projects?
Charles: Indeed they did not visit, they became volunteers in an agency.
Sometimes they chose agencies where they supervised play, or
whatever, whether it was backward children — And I think that
the organization tried to put to use the fact that they were in
college and taking courses on such things.
I think it's important for organizations to know as much
about the volunteer they're bringing in as they can in order to
place them where it will do both the organization and the
volunteer some good and give them some pleasure. But, I want
to tell you, there's nothing scarier than when you realize that
you have people in on your organization who see it as a
stepping stone for something. It's just partly because they
misuse the organization.
Morris: That's interesting. Stepping stone in what sense?
Charles: Well, if they're politically interested. For instance, the
League of Women Voters. It has such a good reputation among the
political world, referring to their membership, and getting
themselves into associations that they couldn' t get into if
they didn't have that to start with.
Morris :
What is the hazard of this in an organization?
142
Charles ;
Morris :
Charles
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
The hazard is that these people are not working for the good of
your organization, but for their own good — for something ambitious
in themselves. That is damaging to the organization, and to the
good relationship among volunteers, when you have people who are
so blatantly ambitious that they just — Or they want to see who
they can meet. In many organizations, if they think there are
any social connections they can make in it, or start pursuing
these people in a way that it's not pleasant.
Of course, you can't close your doors to anyone, but what
you can do is to be sure that they don't get very interesting
jobs. [Chuckles] I really think that you have to be a guardian
of the welfare of your organization and those it serves as well
as of the person volunteering. You don't sit down and have a
heart-to-heart talk, or accuse them, because this is the sort
of thing that they would deny immediately. But, you do talk to
them seriously about what is good for the organization. What
we need to know is our relationship with the other volunteers —
whether we have a happy relationship. It really makes life much
more interesting if you're working with people who understand
you and whom you understand, so that you each get a lift from the
association, and find yourself doing the same thing in your
efforts to help society, or the group your organization was
formed to help.
It sounds as if a lot of this is tacit,
talk directly.
You said you can't
No, it is, that's right. You wouldn't talk to anybody about it,
and you're not going to turn your board meetings into a gossip
factory.
Does the person who is in the chairman's spot or the president's
spot, have some individuals that they talk to?
You have to have almost — but you're going to have to select that
person very, very carefully. Someone who won't take advantage
of you, or deter you, and make it look as if you were discussing
everybody else with them. It's hard, it's very hard and very
lonely being a president of anything. One of the loneliest
jobs in the world.
Were you, in your own mind, teaching this class with the view
that the students in it would end up as board people and
presidents?
That was what my thought was. They were all leaders — most of
them were. Although we can't all be leaders, you recognize
these people. Mills is a very fine school, and one who is
143
Charles: fortunate enough to get in and come through the courses they have
at Mills, is probably going to be a superior kind of person. She
will find her own depth and her own place as she moves along.
Morris: And for potential leaders, the feeling was that it was important
to have these actual one-to-one working experiences?
Charles: Oh my, yes. I always told them that nobody should go in on the
top of any of these organizations. I had a very dear, older
friend who asked me to come in as a state officer for the American
Cancer Society, and I told her, "I could never start out that
way. I'm going to have to be the lowliest volunteer they have
before I would ever want to rise to the top." Because you don't
know what you're talking about when you talk to the persons who
are doing the everyday work. What I learned was that I was
not meant for the Cancer Society because I really don't enjoy
seeing that people know what the danger signals are. It scares
me to try to inject into their thoughts that kind of a fear.
People have enough fear as it is. But, of course, they do need
to know the necessity of keeping track of their health
conscientiously. But this seemed to be a little different.
Now, the Cancer Society has hundreds of volunteers, thousands,
and they don't feel that, so I'm not condemning the Society a
bit.
Morris: Manyof them apprently have had a close encounter with cancer.
Charles: That's right.
Morris: And it helps somehow to deal with that.
Charles: I don't think you have always to have been in the other fellow's
shoes when you do this kind of community work. Sometimes it
helps when you just go along on your own and see them. Being
a true representative of your own situation in life is important,
because the community is composed of people in all kinds of
different backgrounds, and we need to understand each other
from the outside, not always from having been on the inside.
A Note on the Junior League
Morris: That's true. You mentioned the Junior League a couple of times.
Was that kind of a co-sponsor or closely related to the class at
Mills?
Charles: No. I have made a great many talks to the Junior League,
144
Charles: particularly in relation to their classes that the young women
first came into when they were first learning the ropes.
Morris: The orientation for new — ?
Charles: Yes, for new members, during their provisional course. I've
been doing it for years. One of the nicest things, I must say,
that ever happened to me is when the Junior League elected me
as an honorary member.
Morris: I should say so.
Charles: I thought it was. Those young women, you know, really touched
me deeply. They thought, what could they do for me to show
their appreciation. I thought that was sweet.
Morris: Was that after you had been working with them for some time?
Charles: Oh, yes. My daughters were both members of the Junior League
before I ever was. [Laughs] But I've always admired what the
League does. It's a very important element in the community.
The force of it, the League community is very, very good for some
of these young women who might never have come across that in
their lives. And a lot of them wouldn't find the League of
Women Voters pleasing to them. It takes different kinds of
people to be interested in different kinds of things.
Morris: Are there many overlaps in memberships and activities between
the Junior League and the League of Women Voters?
Charles: Not too many. I would like to see more. I think that people
do need to gain experience in different kinds of work,
community work, but the Junior League, you know, is now going
into the business of supporting candidates and issues,
actually politics.
Morris: I hadn't heard that.
Charles: Yes.
Morris : When did that come about?
Charles: It first began about a year ago. I believe it has been authorized
nationally, and I think the individual Leagues are working very
slowly and carefully to be sure that they give a fair representatior
to their members' opinions in deciding what positions they're going
to take. This is not easy to do. And I think they've done very
well. I always admire the way the Junior League makes decisions —
these young ladies decide they're going to do something, they
145
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
barge in where angels fear to tread, you know. They learn a lot
while they do it, they really do. I have to hand it to them.
Did you have any personal friends in the Junior League who were
the ones who invited you to speak?
Well, I had one personal friend, but my contemporaries had
nothing whatever to do with it, because you know, forty is the
year of departure from active League membership, going
sustaining, as they say. So the sustainers don't decide
these things.
It's actually run all the way through by young women, twenty
to forty?
Very young people, yes. And they make their decisions. They
work very hard. And they work with great sincerity. I am
very appreciative of what they do for the community.
Did many of your students from Mills go into the Junior League?
Oh, they would have, yes, in later years in their own communities.
Mills always had a very cosmopolitan student body. Few students
from San Francisco and Oakland, I would say.
Fewer local students?
Yes. Not only from all over this country, but all over the
world. Well, it's a very sophisticated and, as I say,
cosmopolitan student body. A wonderful experience for
the students.
I have always thought it must be.
with any of them?
No, I'm such a bad correspondent.
Did you stay in touch
Did any of them stay around the Bay Area?
No. One girl for a couple of years did, and I heard from her.
She had gone into social work as a profession after graduation.
And I somewhat encouraged her in it, I think, and made it
interesting to her.
146
Charles: We had quite a time because the Ladies Home Journal sent out a
woman to do a story on this course.* It was the first time a
course like this had ever been done in any college. But they
got all mixed up. I had a terrible time making them understand
that it was not a course in professional social welfare, which
is what they thought it was. And I said, "No, because when you
deal with volunteers you have to look at everything in a very
different way. You have to realize that there will be children
at home who may make it impossible for them to keep doing their
best."
Morris:
Charles
Did you have any contact with any of the school of social
welfare?
No. Not really.
Understanding Staff
Morris: I wondered if professional social welfare training included
anything from the other way, of how a staff person deals with
volunteers.
Charles: No, I don't think so. I have never heard of such a thing — it
might. Yes, I think that they may have done it but they do it
with the professionals as teachers. Where Lynn was so
inspired was when he decided to have his course taught by a
person who was a volunteer herself, but had no professional
training.
Charles: I think of one person who is staff whom I think would really be
qualified to speak about what volunteers do. That's my old
friend Florette Pomeroy. Do you know Flor?
Morris: I don't know her as well as I would like to. I was sorry to hear
she's had a heart attack.
Charles: You know, Al and I have talked about this frequently, and the
feeling is that we've got genes that are going to determine
some things that happen to us, no matter what we do. I'm sure
"Training for Service at Mills College," June, 1950.
147
Charles: now that in a family where one parent or the other has had
strokes, the children will, or are going to be very likely
to have a stroke. My mother had a stroke about the same age
I did. But nobody spoke to me about it or told me that I ought
to be taking some precautions, and if so, what. But I just kept
steaming along. And I don't know what you can do but keep on
doing what you have to do.
Morris: It would probably be worse to stop everything and worry about
it.
Charles: Oh, it would be awful.
Morris: What kinds of thinsg can you tell a group of college students
about what to expect in working with staff in a voluntary
organization?
Charles: What I say is, as with everybody else you work with: Fellow
volunteers, it will repay you a thousand times for you to be a
real student of the staff people you work with. Try to understand
why they do what they do, and what they expect, or don't expect.
I've told them repeatedly that courtesy is a great way to smooth
everybody's task. There is never a reason to be discourteous
about anything.
One of the things I've tried to emphasize and make them
understand, that I think staff people need to consider also,
is the hierarchy of the organization. For instance, if you
are critical of a staff person who is quite a ways down in the
structure, you should start at the top and ask who you should
speak to about what you think she is doing the wrong way. And
the staff person should be sure to speak to the volunteer who's
in charge of whatever group of volunteers she is working with
if she doesn't like what they're doing.
Morris: Instead of going to the person you're concerned about.
Charles: It is hard to keep these lines straight — these lines get all
criss-crossed. You've got to keep them open and direct, if
you want anything to come out of your work.
Styles of Feminism
Morris :
You did the Mills course for ten years or so, and I wondered
if you made any major changes in the course of that period of
time?
148
Charles: No, I didn't. I felt that by some blessing I had managed to start
off on the right foot in this. It had worked, and there was no
reason why it wasn't going to continue to work. There was no
major change in the kind of students I had, and that is the only
thing that really creates a change in what you present, unless
you just went at at all wrong.
Morris: So, the students were the same. Did they have the same kinds of
interest in things they wanted tor — ?
Charles: Yes, it seemed so. We have a different group now with the young
feminists coming along. Occasionally at Stanford I would be asked
to the campus to speak to them. I said to the young woman who
asked me the last time (which was four or five years ago) just
at the beginning of the intensity of the feminist thing. And I
said, "You don't want me just to speak about volunteering for
women only do you?" She said, "Oh no, Mrs. Charles, I would
not. Speak for everybody!"
Anyway, on the same program with me the day I spoke was this
student who said that she had done this and that, and had
arrived almost immediately at what she wanted to accomplish.
And I said, "My word, you did that fast." She said, "I have
to, I don't have much time." [Laughter]
I thought that was a commentary of women's desperation.
But it's a different kind of world, and I'm in sympathy with
what these young women are doing because I think every time
there is a reform it needs both the overt (not violent, but
the forceful tactics) and the theoretical ones where somebody
is sitting on the sidelines talking about what women — This
thing has turned into a real struggle between the male and the
female. In the early days of the suffragettes, and during my
activity, we didn't pick out the male as our principle
enemy, as these young women have. I'm not willing to accept
that.
Morris: That the — ?
Charles: That the male is opposed to women just because she is a woman.
They are kind of leery of them. I used to talk about what
you have to do. You have to build the confidence of men if you
wanted to be asked to share in their work, in the old days.
And I would say I believe in the first place, that every woman
should look her very best whenever she's working, whatever it
may be, because that is one of her important tools in getting
along in life.
149
Charles: And she should always be able to be good natured about what is
going on, because humor is so lacking in some of these deliberations
we get into. And remember, it is a great deal easier for women
to be iconoclastic than for men in society.
Morris: Is it?
Charles: Oh, much. When you get into a board, the men may well know
that some old way of doing things has to be knocked down, but
they're not going to say so because when they go back to the
club, and it gets all over that Joe Doakes is losing his head,
because he is now suggesting that they break down the
restrictions on admissions or whatever it may be. But a
woman, you see, can always have the opportunity of making it
look like a sort of a humorous suggestion. Not that she isn't
serious, but a woman is — And the men view a woman as
unaccountable. They won't hold it against her husband that
she makes some unusual suggestion.
Morris: How about the women? Don't women go back to their groups
and say, "Good heavens, do you know what that woman did?"
Charles: No, I don't think so. Women don't play that way. I don't think
so. There are always a great many women who still subscribe
to the male way of doing things, but they're not going to make
it in this world any more. I believe that women are going to
make it on their own terms from now on. At least, I think it's
a tremendous change in society that is taking place under our
very eyes.
I also think we're all going to have to share with the
less fortunate. It comes as a terrible shock, and you learn
a lot of these things in volunteer work. We discovered out at th
the county hospital that a great many of our volunteers were
people who were near or below the poverty line themselves. Our
volunteer director, who was very sensitive to these things,
would tell us that she was going to pay the car fare to get
back and forth to the hospital of a certain number of the
volunteers because she knew well that they couldn't afford
to do that. Those things don't come as such a shock any more
as they used to. And if you don't allow that sort of thing to
happen then you turn volunteering into the Lady Bountiful type
of thing, where only people with money can afford to do it.
And we've got to make it possible for other people to do it,
too. Now the federal government has come in and started paying
volunteers.
150
11. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS' PRESIDENCY, 1948-1950, AND MAYORAL
APPOINTMENTS////
Earlier San Francisco Women Leaders; Public Dance Hall
Committee Issue
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles
Morris:
When we talked over the phone the other day you mentioned the
Public Dance Hall Committee in connection with your work with
the League of Women Voters.
It was a stunning surprise to me when I was president of the
League of Women Voters in about — let's see — '49, I believe.
After I had been in office a month or two, I had a call from
a woman who was executive director, so to speak (they didn't
use that title for her but she was the person who ran the
committee for these ladies) to say that she needed help from
the League. Because she would have gone to the Center, you
see, the League's predecessor in San Francisco, because it
was they who established the Dance Hall Committee. I
immediately felt it was something that the League should do,
even though it didn't fit into the type of a program that we
were running at that time. The League of Women Voters nationally
wanted to confine itself exclusively to political issues, and
this was almost in the realm of welfare.
Right, that's what I think of the Dance Hall Committee.
It would have been what we did — what I suggested actually —
trying to get at what their problems were. Maybe we would get
Community Chest to take them under its wing, and let the League
still keep an interest in what they did, too, from a political
point of view.
I didn't realize that the Dance Hall Committee continued in
existence as long as the forties. I had thought it had been
much earlier.
See interview with Emma Moffat McLaughlin for a further
account of the San Francisco Center of the California Civic
League and the Public Dance Hall Committee.
151
Charles: Well, it had been. It started in 1918, as I recall. And it
was a very successful, creative kind of thing that they did — they
had Miss Garden. The thing that brought it all to mind was, I
read in the paper that she had died at the age of one hundred
and four down the Peninsula.
Morris: What a remarkable lady.
Charles: A wonderful little lady. One of those little competent people,
tiny and vivacious, who knew how to do things, and smart as a
whip. And spoke everybody's language. She really knew the dance
hall girls, and the kind of men who came to dance halls. She
knew who they were. I remember being very impressed and educated
when I saw her in the meeting we had with the police. What she
wanted help with was — when they started the Dance Hall Committee,
the police had agreed that they would not give liquor licenses to
any dance hall operators, or to bars near the dance hall where
people could go out and drink because Miss Garden said liquor and
dance halls just don't mix at all. You just can't let them have
it. So the police had always agreed that they would observe that.
Well, all of a sudden she got wind of the fact that they were
going to grant a liquor license, I believe, to a dance hall
operator, or someone next door.
She said, "I need help, I haven't gotten anywhere with
trying to persuade them not to do it." And she said, "They're
holding a hearing on it next week at a certain time." So I
said, fine, I'd gather up some of the ladies who were involved
and who still were a power in San Francisco. And we all filed
down to that hearing. When fhe police saw us come in they really
changed their tune immediately. [Laughter] All these old girls
came walking in and sat down with our big hats on. We didn't say
a word, we never had to.
Morris: That's what I was just thinking. Very impressive.
Charles: Yes, just as soon as they saw us there. Even the mayor came in
and spoke to us. He had heard that we were going to be there.
It was really amusing. So, I was learning all the time. It
was a marvelous learning experience for me.
Morris: I should say so, that just by the presence of a certain level of
the community you can —
Charles: Influence what goes on. You would have thought that at that time
I would have awakened to the fact, which I have done recently, which
I mentioned to you the other day, how close my generation was to
the women who started these things. We thought they were so much
older they didn't have any real relationship with us at all, but
152
Charles: there wasn't more than a ten-year gap there.
Morris: Why do you suppose you felt that there was a larger gap?
Charles: I did because I had not come from San Francisco, and when I met
these women they were all considerably older than I, and that was
why I felt, "This is ancient history," you know. Their names were
just as important to city hall as they ever had been.
You see, those young women when they decided to take on
political reform, they were going to clean everything up in San
Francisco, these lovely young ladies of the nineties, I just love
to think about them. The freedom was so marvelous for them. And
they wanted to use it to make things better. I don't think they
ever were conscious of what their names meant in city hall; their
fathers had all been very successful industrialists, and people of
self-made importance around town.
Morris: They seem to have been remarkably long-lived.
Charles: Oh, they were, indeed they were.
Morris: If they had started things in the nineties and were still functional
in the forties, that's a tribute to what, hard work, strong ideals?
Charles: I would say so, yes.
Morris: Who were they besides Miss Garden?
Charles: Mrs. Mclaughlin, and Miss Delaney, and Alicia Mosgrove who was
quite a figure in her own right.
Morris: Had they been active in starting the San Francisco Center?
Charles: Yes, they were together. They were the same ones. Mrs. Effingham
Sutton too, was a very strong character and a beautiful woman.
San Francisco Center of the California Civic League Becomes
the League of Women Voters
Morris:
Charles :
My understanding is that the Center was independent, free
standing, and then merged into the League of Women Voters.
And the Center was associated with the statewide California
Civic League.
That's right. Later thpre were people on the board of the League
153
Charles: of Women Voters who felt we shouldn't undertake anything from the
past like that, knowing that the League women nationally wanted us
to drop all the local welfare type things we did, and to carry on
the total program that the national — Of course, we could adopt
our local programs, but such a thing as the Dance Hall Committee
wouldn't fit with the sort of thing that they were talking about.
I just felt that these women had been running something too
important to us, and to our stature in the community, for us to
simply offend them all at the same time by refusing to do something
we could do easily.
Morris : This is the older women?
Charles: The older women, yes.
Morris: — from the San Francisco Center days?
Charles: Yes.
Morris: The Center had been broader than just a political operation?
Charles: Indeed. It was used I think to do whatever they saw needed to be
done, really, and throughout the state. It was a statewide
operation, you know.
Morris: No, I didn't.
Charles: The San Francisco Center was the name of the San Francisco branch
of it. One of the things that the Center used to make its money
on — they were very successful financially, was what they called
the forums that were put on, like the Commonwealth Club, with
prominent visiting speakers. Some important person would come
in and they would put on a program and charge admission. And I
had an opportunity when I came into office as League president,
Madame Pandit was coming, so I invited her to speak.
Morris: She was a very impressive woman.
Charles: She was, very much. People were interested in seeing her. Our
building was full — the only mistake in that was not hiring a large
enough place. We were just packed with people who wanted to see
her, and listen to her.
Morris: Some of the programs of the Center did continue?
Charles: Yes, in that way. I would be severely reprimanded by some of the
people from the national League — not reprimanded, because they didn't
work that way, but they would suggest that we weren't really carrying
out League of Women Voters' program when we did something like that.
154
Charles: We needed to confine ourselves to —
We always had to raise our own money, of course. The local
Leagues support the national League by sending a part of what they
raise back there.
We had found this wonderful way to raise money, which seemed
much easier than tackling all the men in the community for money,
which the League embarked on doing.
Morris: Right, the community contribution sort of thing.
Charles: Yes.
Morris: How about the state League of Women Voters? What did they feel
about this center, if the center had been a statewide organization?
Charles: I think the San Francisco League has always been a problem to the
state and to the national, because we were very independent, and
felt that we were quite able to run our own affairs. [Laughter]
Morris: Did you, yourself, ever go on the state board at all?
Charles: I was never invited to go on. I was the most independent so I was
not popular around there. Because I believe that if one was going
to be successful in the community, you needed to have wide
experience. I didn't confine myself to the League, I was also
with the Community Chest, as it was in those days, and other
welfare organizations I believed in.
Morris: And the League felt that one's primary allegiance should be to the
League activities?
Charles: Yes.
Morris: Was the independence at all a political kind of thing?
Charles: No, no, we were all very careful about the politics. That is, as
to party affiliations, we never discussed it at all. Sometimes
we never knew what somebody's party affiliation was. But if we
had any idea we tried to be sure that our board was balanced, with
people of each persuasion. It was never mentioned at a board
meeting or in any way.
Morris: I was thinking of it more in points of view on topics. Health
insurance was a hot topic the League got involved with.
Charles: Yes. I don't remember being asked to take any position on that.
Although I don't know how accurate all this I am telling you is,
155
Charles: likewise, Gaby; I hate to say that, about the issues which were
hot at that time.
Morris: I was just using health insurance as an example. I think it was
a few years before you were —
Charles: I think so, because I can't remember that that was any problem to
us.
Morris: To you. Okay.
Encouraging New Leadership
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Harriet Nathan recalls that you appointed her to her first major
chairmanship in the League.
Maybe. Did I?
Right.
I had a great deal of respect for her.
She recalls that several of the committee members were much more
experienced and wiser than she. And I wondered why you appointed
somebody who was inexperienced over somebody who was experienced?
Because it is very important to give younger people leadership
experience all the time, and I was very careful about bringing
in new people whenever possible, and seeing that they got jobs
that were suited to their talents, because it doesn't do any
good if the League narrows itself down to just those who are
experienced in what the League of Women Voters does, and has no
idea of what the rest of the city is involved in.
That's true.
So I liked people who were active in other groups to come in to
help us, too.
But to bring them in and make them chairmen of a committee, that's
kind of a —
Well, I think Harriet had been in other League activities prior
to that. Would Harriet remember that?
What she remembers most is that they were older and wiser, and she
felt almost that they were there to advise her, and to train her,
in a sense. And I wondered if that would be part of your thinking?
156
Charles: It might have been, I really don't remember much about that
incident. But I would try to make committees balanced in the
depth of the experience of the people, and the personalities.
Morris: And in a sense provide somebody with more experience to — ?
Charles: Right, who could keep moving, because the League is always in
need of leadership.
Morris: Does that same kind of thing of encouraging younger people from
outside other organizations apply in whatever the group is?
Charles: I think so. I used to admire what the Community Chest did. They
had an excellent policy that was really quite remarkable to watch
in forming the so-called budget committee who reviewed the budgets
of the organizations applying for next year. They handpicked from
all over town, whether they had any previous interest in the
Community Chest or not. If they had any skills in the particular
kind of thing they were going to be reviewing. It kept the
Community Chest base broad. I thought that that was a very wise
policy, and one that the rest of us could emulate in our
organizations.
I didn't really bring people into the League, I don't think.
What I tried to do was select people who were coming along, I
tried to watch these young ones quite closely and find out every
thing I could about them.
Morris: Find out everything you could about them?
Charles: Yes. Whether they would be qualified to move ahead, and if so
in what way.
Morris: What kinds of things would you look for?
Charles: I would look for what kind of work they had done in other
organizations, whether they had a background of some research
or actual experience in fields that we were working in.
Morris: What I hear again is an interest in people moving from one
organization to another.
Charles: I believe that people should be experienced in more than one
organization — if I am repeating myself, I'm sorry.
Morris: No, no. It's a point that's worth making again.
Charles: I think it's the only way that you get a sense of what a community
is all about, when you begin to have a little experience in
different kinds of organizations that that community has fostered
157
Charles: and seems to be responsive to.
Morris: How do you establish some continuity for one particular organization
if people are moving back and forth?
Charles: I don't mean — you're taking this too literally. I don't mean
people who are moving back and forth. I mean, people do good
work in one organization, and they use themselves up in it, and
there comes the time when they do better if they step aside and
do something else. I know that everybody doesn't agree with that
theory of mine — I've had it quite strongly.
Morris: It would seem to me that there might be a fatigue element that
would set in.
Charles: If they don't want to do that kind of thing any more. But,
often you find that their experience can be very useful in a
brand new field for them.
Morris: That the same ideas and skills transfer?
Charles: Yes. I have always had a policy for myself that when I finish with
an organization I get out of that organization. It's not that they
don't need you; they don't need you, that's true. You get an
exaggerated sense of whether they need you or not. And I think
it's important to get out of it, and have the freedom to go in
which ever direction it wants to go in. You're still there
if they want to find out anything from you.
Advisory Board of Health
Morris :
Charles;
Morris:
Charles ;
Along with the League and the other private voluntary organizations
you were involved in — I'm not sure which came first. You served
on the Board of Health and the San Francisco Housing Authority.
That's much, much later.
Your appointment to the Board of Health came first?
That was quite early on. We hadn't had a Board of Health here for
many years. They had, as they said, thrown out the baby with the
bath water. We got a new health director who read the city charter,
and saw that it was provided that there should be an advisory
board of health. The previous health officer had not wanted any
advice, so he just discontinued it and never got one appointed.
Then several of my doctor friends came to me and asked me if I
158
Charles: would join the committee that they were then setting up as a
potential health advisory board at the request of the health
director who, as it turned out, was Ellis Sox.
Morris: I was going to ask if that was when he came to San Francisco.
Charles: Yes. [J.C.] Geiger had been the man who had never used the
advisory board.
Morris: Apparently he was kind of a difficult man to deal with.
Charles: Well, he was an independent sort, he wasn't going to have any
interference in the way he wanted to do things. He had all those
medals, you know, that he wore all over his chest and that kind
of thing. [Laughs] It gave people a sort of a start.
But my doctors were all people I had known well. Some of
them went to college with me or else knew me in other ways.
They knew I had been doing organizational work. Naturally they
thought I would be a great secretary for their committee. That's
what they like to do with women, you know, on these committees.
I had never been the secretary of anything before. But, of
course, it's something you can do without too much difficulty.
Morris: Was the secretary purely in the sense of keeping the minutes,
or was it a more managerial — ?
Charles: No, no, it was just in the sense of keeping the minutes, and maybe
calling meetings and seeing that they were held, and that sort of
thing.
Morris: The paperwork.
Charles: Yes.
Morris: Did this grow in any way out of the Stanford Hospital auxiliary
experience?
Charles: I don't believe so, no. Well, maybe so, because one of the board
was a Stanford doctor who was very much interested in public health.
Another one was a doctor that I knew socially, he and his wife
socially, and he knew something of what I had been doing in the
community. I really enjoyed that. It was a little change for me,
that's what I liked, a chance to do things that were completely
different.
Morris: The date I have for the start of that is 1958.
Charles: Is that so, I don't —
159
Morris: That's in the vita that you gave me a while ago. Was it the mayor
who appointed that committee?
Charles: No, the CAO, chief administrative officer. You know San Francisco
has this dual government. The mayor apooints half of the commissions
and boards, and the chief administrative officer appoints the other
half.
Morris: I didn't realize that.
Charles: Yes. The chief administrative officer was the appointing officer
in this case. So he had asked the doctors to please look around
and see who they thought ought to be on there. They would
gradually try to groom a few people to be on there. And we really
had a — I had a wonderful time on that committee, I loved it.
Morris: Who was the CAO?
Charles: I think it was Thomas Brooks, but I'm not positive now. I knew
Mr. Brooks from my League of Women Voters presidency and when I
would appear out at city hall, if he'd see me in the corridor
he'd say, "Mrs. Charles, we do better when we are watched." He
was a sweet man. He was absolutely adamant about what he believed
in and didn't believe in. And years later when we decided to
try to start an auxiliary out at the county hospital, which is
under the direction of the city, which it shouldn't have been
because the doctors all felt that it should have been under an
entirely separate commission.
Morris: The hospital?
Charles: The county hospital, the public hospital. In any case, he knew
who I was so he had no objections to my appointment to that.
Morris: What is the difference between serving in something like a public
body and privately — ?
Charles: Well, the difference is one of knowing as much as you possibly can
about the city itself, which I had to try to learn about.
Morris: As much as possible about the city, that means working at the
actual governmental — ?
Charles: Yes, and also about where health services would be needed, where
the Board of Health functioned. You learn so much in those things.
I remember when the Board had health inspectors who went around
and inspected the kitchens all over, of restaurants, and the
Chinese, their restaurants are always marvelous because they
cook in such hot fat that they don't have any problem of
160
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
tainted food. But the one thing that the inspectors always
looked out for was the hollandaise sauce because it's made with
the same sort of thing that a laboratory culture —
That things thrive in.
— thrive in, and a lot of these chefs just couldn't stand to
throw out hollandaise sauce if it wasn't all used up. They
would like to put it at the back of the stove and let it keep
warm a little bit, which is the worst possible thing that you
could do. So, those were just generalizations which I wouldn't
have know about without being on this thing.
Was there much resistance to the idea of a health committee, a
Board of Health?
No, no resistance except for the director himself, but Ellis
worked with us and treated us as if we were a regular board. We
would make our recommendations to him as to what we thought needed
to be done around town.
You said, treated you like a regular board,
been officially established?
This is before it had
No, I mean it was because it was an advisory board, and there was
a bone of contention about it. See, the other boards do appoint
the director of whatever the department is and keep an eye on him.
But an advisory board can't do anything, if nobody wants your
advice.
That's an interesting distinction. Would something like the Board
of Health have political implications?
Yes. And the reason the Board of Health had been abandoned, too,
was that there had been somebody on the board feathering his own
nest in purchases that had to be made. It was the same thing with
the Housing Authority later on. When I came on that, I was taking
the place of a man who had been a union representative who had
taken great steps to see that the purchases of the supplies went
somehow through him, and that his union was always called in
whether they were needed or not. It was really — it's amazing
what somebody can do who's —
One of the standard legends about San Francisco is that there is
an unwritten rule that there shall be a union man on every board
and commission.
Charles :
Yes, it's a really unionized city.
161
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Was this your first exposure to — ?
In a public body, yes.
And was it your first working kind of contact with union leaders?
Yes, but I don't think we had a union leader on this advisory
board.
Housing Authority Concerns
Charles: On the Housing Authority we did have a union leader. He was a very
nice man, I enjoyed him. He's still on, I believe.
Morris: I couldn't find a date for the Housing Authority.
Charles: It might have been about '64 that I was on the Housing
Authority.
Morris: That was a mayor's appointment.
Charles: That's right. And the mayor was — it was before Alioto — Shelley.
I had a friend who was a Democrat who called me up and he asked
me if I would consider going on the Housing Authority. He didn't
want the mayor to ask me if I wouldn't even consider it. And I
said, "Yes, I would. I would enjoy learning about that." I
didn't really consider that I knew anything about housing, but
I would set about to learn.
I was appointed, much to everybody's surprise because I've
always been known as a Republican, although a terrible
Republican. I don't think the Republicans point to me with any
pride or know about me anyway. They know about me, but they
know better than to rely on me for anything, because I am
determined that I shall make up my own mind about political
situations. I can't support somebody just because he's a
Republican. I have to know what I think of his character,
and one thing and another. You're not supposed to do that
according to some of these young fellows in the party, local.
And I just said, "Well, I'm sorry but I can't. I can't take
party then. You'd just better forget about me." They were
glad to do that [laughs], because they could see that I would
be kind of a stormy petrel.
Morris: That would probably have made you more attractive to the
Democratic mayor —
162
Charles:
Morris:
Charles
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
I think so, yes.
Did you have any particular contact with Mayor Shelley while you
were on the Housing Authority?
No, not really. Of course, you have to go and be sworn in, and
you went to his office and that happens there.
He didn't ask you in for a little chat before he appointed you?
No, he didn't. But all the mayors we've had have tried very hard
to influence the Housing Authority to do certain things, which
they exerted through the executive director. I made it clear
to Eneas Kane, in my day — I made it clear to Kane that I wasn't
going to take any orders from anybody, and he knew whenever he — he'd
just have to report that I was kind of an ornery independent, that
I wasn't going to be told what to do.
I was thinking the other day when I saw that this young
person who was appointed the hospitality appointee for the State
Department here, and there was a great deal of competition for
it. And her husband had died recently, and it turned out that
she was a young black woman, and it said that she had had a job
with the Housing Authority with some title that I had never heard
of before. But that's the sort of thing that the Housing
Authority would be asked to do.
To create a job —
Morris: You said that on the advisory Board of Health you didn't have the
power to appoint the director. How about with the Housing
Authority, did you have — ?
Charles: Yes, that was all we were supposed to do, I think. To appoint
a director and an assistant director. We were all pleased with
the way Kane was running it, but he had to appoint an assistant
and we were very careful to see that he searched widely and gave
us his reasons which were good ones, as to why he had done so.
And we would make that appointment too.
Morris: There's a curious kind of relationship if you have the hire and
fire power over the housing director, but the mayor is trying to
influence the authority through the director.
Charles: Yes, yes, that's right.
Morris: Did that cause any — ?
163
Morris :
Charles:
Charles: No, not any difficulties, but that's what I said before that
being a woman has some advantages. They would tolerate this
soirt of thing more in a woman, kind of an independence that
they might not at all tolerate with a man.
Did any of your fellow Housing Authority members have similar
concerns about the mayor trying to make your decisions for you?
No, we didn't discuss that sort of thing. One of the things I
like to avoid, especially in a public position like that, is a
lot of backstairs talk which some people enjoy doing, and
getting on a gossipy basis with almost everybody. I didn't want
to do that, I wanted to make our relationship very dignified and
out in the open. So we got along well that way.
Morris: There is a theory that most of the decisions of public bodies are
made behind the scenes.
Charles: You can't really do that, because of the Brown Act requiring that
public bodies meet in public. It was in effect most strongly
when I was on the Housing Authority. We were very careful about
being sure that we didn't make our decisions behind the scenes.
And we succeeded very well.
164
12. STANFORD HOSPITAL AUXILIARY IN SAN FRANCISCO, 1956-1958
[Interview 6: 10 October 1977 ]##
Community Goodwill, Move to Palo Alto
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
When we talked about the Stanford Hospital Auxiliary before,
you mentioned that the trustees had thought that an auxiliary
would be a good idea and told you to go ahead. What did the
trustees think that an auxiliary would accomplish?
They were thinking about community goodwill. To bring members
of the community in and be a part of the institution, which is
what an auxiliary is for, and it is what you keep reminding your
volunteers all the time. If they aren't the harbingers of
good will from the hospital to the community and back, that they
really aren't worth much even though they give a lot of service.
They need to consider themselves emissaries from the hospital out,
and from the community in.
Was the community upset, the patients and things like that, at the
thought of the hospital moving to Palo Alto?
No, but the doctors were hesitant. They just fought like cats and
dogs to prevent that move. They didn't want it at all. Many of
the doctors did go down to Stanford, but even the ones who were
going down thought that the hospital really ought to be here.
If they could have kept it here, they would have severed their
connections with the hospital down there immediately.
I see. Was there already a medical school in Palo Alto?
No, no. But many of the preliminary courses were courses given
on the campus. Stanford Medical School was always located in
San Francisco.
I think myself it [the move] was a very sensible thing to do.
165
Charles: It just upset a lot of people. It upset Friends of Stanford who
knew about the financing of the hospital and the financing of city
services. They were afraid that might not continue with the move
away, because San Francisco was contributing to the support of
the hospital by paying toward the care of clinical cases.
Morris: I see.
Charles: UC and Stanford shared between them the responsibility of taking
care of the indigent local patients. Most cities have a health
service of their own, including a hospital and care, but San
Francisco never had one. They just turned the whole job over
really to the two university medical schools.
Morris: And that was historical because of the medical schools in the city
which could take on that clinic?
Charles: No, no, there were no city clinics. When Stanford left, then
UC was the one who would have to take it all. And they weren't
very pleased to do it. It was really quite a decision.
And it provided the doctors with "clinical material," as
they call it rather coldly. They worried about where they were
going to get it when they go down to Palo Alto. But, of course,
there are plenty of ill people down around there. And there's a
whole Veterans' Hospital there which avails itself of the Stanford
services, and they had really plenty of clinical material as
they call it —
Morris: Yes, but you can see how they —
Charles: Yes, but they need it.
Morris: You don't think of volunteers as coming in contact particularly
with the medical staff.
Charles: Well, the medical staff really is in control of the operations of
their department at the hospital. Many of them had not heard about
volunteers and weren't at all sure that it wouldn't be very
disruptive to their operations. But Leslie Luttgens talked with
them one by one; she was ideal for that, having a doctor husband.
Morris: Was Dr. [William] Luttgens on the staff of Stanford?
Charles: Oh, yes.
Morris: Did you have some kind of an idea in your mind when you said
you'd take this on of what you thought a hospital auxiliary should
be?
166
Charles;
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Yes, I did indeed. I had been interested in that subject for a
long time — I think in the whole subject of volunteers, and how
they could be useful. And I had observed what other hospitals
were doing with them, and it seemed to me that we ought to be
able to avoid some of their pitfalls and have a really good
operation here.
Even though the hospital was moving away nobody really
believed it was, you know. They just thought, "Something will
happen to change their mind." But the University was very
serious about it. I used to be uncomfortable on the board because
I would try to defend the doctors. Some of their behavior was
just inexplicable, it was so rough and they would go after the
trustees in the most discourteous way. But people do not like
change.
This decision was made by the university trustees to move the
hospital?
Oh my, yes. All the decisions of that sort are ultimately
made by the trustees. At Stanford they didn't do it at first,
but they're the ones, just as the regents are the ones at UC who
make the decisions, so there's nobody to blame but the trustees
of the regents.
On something as major as moving the medical school, I would wonder
if the doctors perhaps might have brought the original question
to the trustees?
Oh yes, of course. The doctors wanted to know what the trustees
thought. The trustees are always in the bind of trying to support
their staff which, of course, begins with the president, though
some of them don't. Wally Sterling was the president at that
time, and he had satisfied himself that it was the thing to do.
He was really what is called in some universities the Provost.
What were some of the pitfalls that you had observed^- ?
I thought one major one, which is not a criticism but I think is
a hazardous thing. The Children's Hospital has several auxiliaries,
with different names, which benefit different wards and departments.
And it's really very hard to manage. One so-called auxiliary
will start a fundraising event and then, of course, they don't
want any other one of their own hospital auxiliaries to be
competing with them. All those things, innumerable things
that have to be worked out.
And it really makes it harder —
Charles;
Morris :
167
Makes it much harder. So we agreed that we would have one
auxiliary for the whole hospital, and that's what we were
organizing. We didn't want to let that get out of hand.
You wanted to concentrate on which aspect?
hospital?
Service in the
Charles: Yes. That's what you're there for.
Getting Started
Morris: Did you have any ideas of how the organization should function?
What its tasks might be and how you would like to put it together?
Charles: Yes, you had to have a person on the staff in charge of volunteers
who placed them in the proper area. That is, would talk to them
and find out what their experience was and what their likes and
dislikes were. And give them a temporary assignment in one
department of the hospital.
We were very pleased to find out the doctors were not going
to oppose us. They were very glad to have us coming in. Not only
that, but we asked each of them to give us a ten dollar
charter fee to help — that amounted to about a thousand dollars —
to help us get started. And they did this.
Morris: Even though they had differences of opinion as to the future of
the hospital they were happy to have — ?
Charles: They were happy to have the auxiliary. Those who opposed going
to the Stanford campus saw it as an anchor to San Francisco, you
see.
Morris : You said that you began with a whole series of preliminary
meetings.
Charles: Yes, we wanted to get our numbers to a good size, so what we did
was assemble a little group, Leslie being in charge of the volunteer
end of it. I wasin charge of the overall. We needed people who
would be good f undraiswers , and good organization people who could
handle the total organization, that sort of thing. So, we invited
a few people who were interested in Stanford, Stanford Hospital,
and some of the doctors' wives. I was very anxious that there
not be a doctors' wives auxiliary, which would make it very hard
for everybody too.
Morris : Is this a hazard?
168
Charles: I wouldn't describe it as a hazard. We just had some doctors'
wives who joined with everybody else, in the membership of the
auxiliary. We used the initial funds from the doctors' charter
memberships to purchase office equipment, et cetera, to do our
paper work, and we had to adopt bylaws and all those things that
organizations have to do. But the first thing was to get started
with the group that was interested. So to the first group that
came we described what was going to happen, and invited them to
bring friends to the next meeting.
Morris: Was the first group primarily people that you knew yourself?
Charles: Well, Leslie and I did.
Morris: Personally acquainted?
Charles: Mostly, I think, or that we would have been told about, because the
word was around that there was to be an auxiliary. People in the
hospital or on the board of trustees would have heard it, would
let me know any time a name came to the fore of someone that was
interested in being informed. We asked the wives of all the
administrators — we tried to be sure that we included everybody.
I wrote a paper on how to organize things.* That paper is still
circulating around. I just gave it to a couple of young women
who came over in regard to the school resource volunteers which
was falling off a little bit.
Morris: Really? The San Francisco school volunteers?
Charles: Yes. And they wanted to — they were going to have to start asking
them to pay dues which they had never done, and which they
naturally might feel they were doing when they gave their service
instead. But in most organizations, everybody pays dues
regardless because there is work to be done, just at the
organization end of it. I told the girls that if they did
that they were going to have to be awfully sure what compensation
in feeling these women got. I wondered how close they felt to
the organization and the leaders, whether there was a gap, because
there can be between volunteers and leadership which is really not
a good thing, but it happens, and you have to watch out for it
all the time.
See Appendix II: "Some Thoughts on the Establishment of
Successful Auxiliaries," Caroline M. Charles, copyright
1960.
169
Morris: I can believe that. So you feel if an organization is going to
ask for dues from their members that it's only going to work if
there is a closeness between the board and members.
Charles: Right, if they all know what's going on all the time. Sheana
Butler, Lou Butler's wife, was the one who came over for help.
She told somebody that that paper was of more help to her than
anything she had heard of before. And I hope I have another
copy. She's going to have it duplicated, she's going to loan
it to everybody in the world, I guess.
Morris: Now the first group, the first meeting that you had. Would you
recall how many women that would have been?
Charles: Yes, I would say that was about fifteen probably.
Morris: And these were all invited, and had already heard that you had
this idea in mind.
Charles: Yes. I described to them what we were going to do and how we
hoped they would want to join with us in doing it, and if they
knew others who might like to come, we'd have about six or seven
meetings, I would like to ask them to bring them. Because we
would then be the charter group, the founding group of the
auxiliary. That was a scheme that worked extremely well because-
Morris: And Leslie was part of this first group?
Charles: Yes, indeed. She was already working with me. She told them
what she had done already, in putting things together for the
volunteers.
Morris: Do you recall who else was in the group at first?
Charles: No. I think Leslie remembers things like that better than I
do. But I am not sure who was in the first group.
Morris: Had you and Leslie talked about this plan with the hospital
trustees as well as the Stanford trustees?
Charles: There were no hospital trustees. That was one problem. The
hospital was run by the whole Stanford board of trustees, and
you can imagine how unsatisfactory that was. Daily business
was run by the doctors which is not a good plan because they
always knew what they wanted but they didn't know what the
business structure needed.
Morris :
1 see.
170
Charles: So, after the auxiliary was born, full blown like Venus, it was
really — I've forgotten how many members we had.
Morris: You said four hundred, I think.
Charles: Yes, over four hundred. We announced that we were established
and were about to set to work. We had a marvellous announcement
because we got hold of Wally [Sterling] and Wally came up and
had a press conference for us.
Morris: I should think so.
Charles: And we were on the front page of the daily paper. Stanford
Hospital was front page news all the time, particularly if you
could get one of the leaders, because the doubts and controversy
about whether or not they were going down to Stanford were still
keeping the newspapers interested about what was going to happen.
Morris: So it was the community discussion too, that was in the press?
Charles: It was in the press, oh yes.
Morris: How did the initial group of women feel about this controversy
about whether or not Stanford Hospital was going to move?
Charles: Well, we weren't going to talk about that with them, that wasn't
our function. I explained to them that that was a decision that
had to be made by the board of trustees, in consultation with the
doctors, of course. The doctors' wives, of course, had lots of
opinions which they had heard at home. Most of the others didn't
know the pros, the cons, and couldn't argue about it.
Morris: Did this cause any difficulties in your discussions?
Charles: No, not a bit. I just said that I thought it was worth doing,
and that this auxiliary really would remain here if the hospital
went to the campus, because who's going to pick up and move their
whole home some place else to do volunteer work. You can't do
that.
Morris: It was already known that a hospital would continue to function
in San Francisco?
Charles: We didn't know that, no, because the Presbyterians weren't yet
interested in trying to take the old one over. It never crossed
Stanford's mind that we could do anything but demolish it.
Morris: I see. So they thought it was just going to be a time limited
171
Morris: thing, the auxiliary.
Charles: Exactly, but they were reasonable about it. They thought it would
be useful as long as it lasted, since there was no time set for
the move yet.
Morris: And you were willing to put in that time on something that was —
Charles: Oh my, yes. It was well worth doing, the good will for Stanford
was enormous, because the minute you give people something to do
they're very grateful, they love Stanford, you know, alumni wives,
other alumnae. Just the way you feel about your own college. And
so there wasn't any serious question about that.
The one big argument we got into that really amused me was
over what color uniforms the auxiliary would wear, and the ladies
were all squared off in two corners, practically. I don't know
what the alternatives were, but they —
Morris: [Laughs] That's marvelous.
Charles: It really was. I was anticipating something like that — disagreement
about something relatively unimportant — it really wasn't worth
fighting about, a bone of contention and not a serious matter, and
that's exactly what happened. So what I did was to appoint a
committee on uniforms, and I put the most vociferous of the two
opposition groups together and asked them to come back next time
with a recommendation that we could follow. And it worked very
well.
Morris: Did they manage to —
Charles: Oh, they managed, indeed they did. And it really worked very
well.
Recruiting Sponsors and Other Special Talents
Charles: We had a very smooth organization. I'd gotten some marvelous
people that I knew in other connections to come in who would —
We wanted to have an opening party because we wanted to start
raising money right away. Showing that this would be one of
our functions. I persuaded Ursula Stratford, who was the
Charlotte Mailliard of the time, to come in. And then I had
a friend in the Junior League who was absolutely tops in
publicity, and it was she who said, "I'll get you on the front
page if you get Dr. Sterling here to announce the auxiliary."
172
Charles: And Wally, of course, was always very agreeable to helping in any
way that he could.
Morris: Did the people that you brought in from other organizations stay
with the auxiliary, or did they just come in as a — ?
Charles: Well, they stayed for a little while, but I don't think to the
present. After all, I'm not there either.
Morris: I was thinking about the initial stage, and then the first
transition.
Charles: Oh, no, they stayed during the first year or two. I was very
grateful to them. That's the way you can make use of your
friends, [laughs] is by putting their real skills to work, you
see. Both of my friends, Anne Simpson was my publicity expert —
She's moved to Carmel now.
Morris: Still doing publicity things?
Charles: I told her I just didn't think in Carmel they knew what she could
do. As soon as they found out, she wouldn't have a moment's peace,
Maybe she wanted peace, you know.
Morris : Did these women already have commitments to other organizations?
Charles: Yes, but they're not — For instance, parties don't take place
all at once, you know. You're not doing it all the time. And
publicity is one that requires very much attention at the moment
when you're seeking it, but it isn't a full time job. Anne's
love was always the Opera Guild and the Opera.
Morris: But she could do the hospital auxiliary —
Charles: All she needed to know was what we were about to do, and then
she just plucked right out what the news value was. She was
really — I don't put her in the past, but she's not here any
more — just the greatest volunteer publicity person that I have
ever known. She got on beautifully with the women of the press,
and she really knew how to do it.
Morris: Did she do the planning and the contact work, and then have other
people to do the writing of the stories, and that sort of thing?
Charles: Oh my, yes. Nobody in publicity involved in the organizations
really does much writing that is actually used. They call up
and have a press conference and have information sheets ready
for publicity, these representatives from the papers. You have
to be sure you get the right ones. When Anne decided that
173
Charles: Wally Sterling's appearance should be on what she called "cityside,"
she had the city reporters in rather than the girls in the women's
page. But she knew. She always knew what she was doing. You can
stub your toe terribly on those things, you know. Just offend
people and never be able to take care of it. That's why I wanted
an expert in it.
Morris: How did you manage to talk her into coming — ?
Charles: I didn't have to talk much, she loves to do it. Everybody here
was very fond of Stanford Hospital, and she felt a stake in it,
her husband was an alumnus, and she was interested in helping,
if what she could do would help Stanford.
Morris: How many of the original people, would you say, either were
Stanford alumnae or had spouses who had gone to Stanford?
Charles: I would say a very high percentage to start with, but that soon
changed, because I have always believed that any volunteer
organization must be open to anybody who is willing to work.
The minute you start making membership requirements you make
it exclusive, which is all right. We have a place in society
for exclusive organizations, but not, I believe, when you're
going to try to be serving your community in a way that volunteer
organizations do. I believe that they must open their doors.
And then, of course, you must have a very good training and
screening program.
Morris: How did you go about setting that up?
Charles: Well now, Leslie and I worked together on that. We both knew
people that we had known in other organizations who had done
that well, and got them to come and help us. Because you know,
people that do volunteer work just love to have a chance to
exercise their talents, they really do. You don't have to do
any awful lot of persuading, unless you don't know what it is
that you want them to do. If you know exactly what needs to be
done, you need so-and-so for a special reason, they're pleased
to be asked, and glad to contribute their time. That's been
my experience.
Morris: Who was the first staff person who was with you as coordination
of volunteers? Do you remember her name?
Charles: Oh, I know it well, she was married to a Unitarian minister we
had here. Leslie will remember it. Louise. I can't remember
whether we had her before her marriage. That's not a job you
find a great deal of experience in, you know.
Morris:
That was what I was wondering, if she had had any experience.
174
Charles: Not much, I believe. And it takes a certain kind of personality
to do it.
Morris: What kinds of skills?
Charles: It needs skills of perception of what it is people really want to
do, and enough maturity to be always kind and helpful to these
people, realizing that they have come because they want to help.
Morris: Kind of submerge your own personality.
Charles: Right.
Morris: How did you go about selecting what kinds of tasks volunteers
could do in a hospital location?
Charles: That was really Leslie's department. She just went to each
doctor. We knew from other experiences with hospitals that
volunteers must not get into the professional aspects of
nursing or medicine. They have to be very careful about that,
and they have the complete cooperation of the doctor and the
nurses, and that they don't step on anybody's toes because that
doesn't do any good. Volunteers can do lots of jobs that they
never even thought of before, like the daily wheeling a coffee
cart around, or a tea cart, or whatever it is at eleven o'clock
in the morning.
Morris: Had Leslie done some volunteer coordinating in hospitals?
Charles: Oh my, yes, back in Rochester where she came from. I was
awfully lucky to run into her right at that time. She just
couldn't have been a better person.
Morris: Aside from her own personal experience in the hospital, what
kinds of qualities struck you particularly?
Charles: Of Leslie?
Morris: About Leslie, yes.
Charles: I think her ability to bear the details in mind, and keep the
detailed part of the thing always functioning. Leslie is
extremely businesslike, you know.
Morris: Out of that four hundred you started with, did many of them
appear to be the kind of people who would move on into the
leadership in the organization?
Charles:
Oh, I think so, lots of them. Leslie was capable of following
175
Charles: me. I think we had another doctor's wife who was president
first.
Morris: She mentioned a Martha Bush, and a Mrs. Babe Gamble.
Charles: Martha succeeded me [1958-1959]. Babe was a doctor's wife [Mrs.
John Gamble, 1959-1960]. He was one of Bill Luttgen's partners
in his office. She was a Stanford girl. Martha Bush was not a
Stanford girl. Her husband, Bob, was an ardent Stanford
supporter. And Martha was a most engaging, I thought, very
sensible person — direct and outspoken, and good. She had done
almost no volunteer work herself at that time. But she picked
up everything. She knew how to do what was expected of her,
what was needed.
Morris: You said that fundraising was something you wanted the Auxiliary
to get into right away.
Charles: Right away, yes.
Morris: What kind of fundraising?
Charles: Well, any kind, but it was mostly parties, giving benefits.
Because it keeps your name before the public, that's important.
And also, some people wouldn't be interested in the rather drab
work of hospital volunteering. You want to make your auxiliary
with as many facets as possible. We had that most wonderful
party — I enjoyed it so much myself — that Ursula Stratford and her
friends put on. We went out to the beach and took one of those
chalets out there for the evening. Nobody had done that. Most
of the functions had occurred at hotels, and we hired a
Pinkerton man to keep an eye on funds — Because some people
come and pay at the door, which is a big headache for you
because you don't know what you're going to do with the money —
they pay cash. So we hired a man from Pinkerton 's to keep an
eye on our receipts. And later we had lost some, and everybody
was convinced that he was the fellow who had taken in, which was
a little hard. We couldn't prove anything. We never found out
where it went, we didn't lose much, but a little bit.
Morris: Did the group break into people who enjoyed the fundraising
activities and those who liked — ?
Charles: They don't really separate themselves from each other, but there
is always that. You've got to have both of those two kinds in
any group when you're founding an auxiliary.
Morris :
And they don' t separate themselves?
176
Charles: No, no, they don't set themselves off. That's up to the president
to see that that doesn't happen. She really should try to see
that the volunteers themselves have enough socializing, so you
might say, among themselves. It's very important for keeping
the organization going, to be sure that the volunteers have a
way to get together every so often and exchange views. Very
often they have never met each other because they've worked at
different hours, you know, and somebody might work in the morning
and somebody else in the afternoon or evening on the same service.
So, we always kept that going in seeing that the volunteers had —
It's nice to do that in somebody's home. They've gotten tired of
the hospital by now. They need to come out — I always used to
use my house for that sort of thing.
Morris: What kind of activity?
Charles: We'd have maybe a potluck supper. Even if we had an evening
meeting we'd serve coffee and cake, or tea and cake, and cookies.
You must serve food at those things; they're bleak, they're
terrible without it.
Morris: Is this for the rank and file volunteers as well as the board?
Charles: Oh, indeed. The board is neither here nor there. If they
want to come, yes, you want them there, but it's for the
volunteers who are actually engaged in the work every day.
Sometimes you have somebody who'll tell you urgently that
they can't come because that's their night to volunteer.
They won't come to the party, and you try to arrange so they
can come if they want to.
You also try to get yourself a group of sponsors, a
committee of well-known people in the town who are known for
their interest in whatever you are trying to do, to give you
a kind of status that they share with you. And as we got
toward the end we had to begin to designate chairman of various
things, and people who would do bylaws and who would be
interested in other aspects. We tried to find out what people
wanted to do.
But about the sponsors, I said that I wanted to see that we
had a committee of sponsors, which I thought would be very
helpful to us in our first organization. Because the first
thing that people look at are names, you know. Who's behind
this thing? So I asked the University trustees' wives who
lived here in San Francisco, and there were a few obvious
people of that sort. I asked Mrs. Harold Faber with the
agreement of my group; her husband was a very distinguished
doctor with Stanford. Dr. Faber was a pediatrician, and very
177
Charles: much adored by patients' families and his associates. Mrs.
Faber was always doing things for Stanford and for the hospital.
I thought she would be just ideal, because she knew all these
people. So I just asked her if she would be good enough to go
ahead and set up what she thought looked like a good strong
sponsor list.
Morris: She was part of your preliminary — ?
Charles: No, no, not a bit. I just called her at the time when I got the
agreement of my group that that was what we would do. She was
just ideal for that. And I didn't want to leave her out, either.
But she wouldn't be likely to be doing daily volunteering or
enjoy the rather labored meetings. She was much older. I had
consulted with her frequently in setting out to establish the
auxiliary.
Morris : There were cases where you actually went to particular people?
Charles: Oh, yes. That's what I point out in my little list of organizing,
how important it is to be sure that you let the people know who
should know what you're doing so that they don't have to read
about it somewhere. If they do that, you'll have an enemy
instead of a friend.
Morris: How much of that kind of detailed work can you delegate?
Charles: Not too much. I think the president or the organizing person
has to do a great deal of that herself. She has to be sensitive
enough to know who really has to get in touch with somebody to
make it emphatic about what you're doing.
Mrs. Faber persuaded people to be on the sponsor list whom
I never would have thought of, a very impressive list.
Morris: Really?
Charles: Yes. She just went up and down the Peninsula, reviewed the long
list of friends, and acquaintances who she knew to be interested
in Stanford, and any of them, I guess, who were appreciative of
Dr, Faber's services for their children, or had in the past,
hated to decline anything she asked.
Interpersonal Relations, Developing Continuity
Charles: But we had a member of our group who decided that I needed to
be slapped down on that one, and she told me that that was
178
Charles: totally unnecessary to do that.
I said, "All right, let's understand each other. I am
organizing this. I've been delegated the authority to do it
by the board of trustees, and I'm going to do it, and your
objections are not going to make the slightest difference to me.
There are just certain things that I think need to be done."
This woman went out of the meeting, got hold of Leslie Luttgens,
and told her I was the meanest woman she had ever met.
Morris: Oh, dear.
Charles: Well, you know, I didn't care, in fact, it was a compliment in
that sense, because when you're asked to do something and you
know how, nobody forgives you for giving up your leadership
to some ignoramus who doesn't know how. She was a young woman
who had done a great deal of publicity, but she really didn't
know anything about organizing things.
Morris: Do you think that she thought she ought to be organizing this?
Charles: No, she wouldn't know the people. No, no, she just felt that
no organization worth its salt needed that kind of support, that
you would be able to get that from the organization itself. She
took issue with me on several things.
I also told the volunteers that I have always had the
belief that volunteers should not do work they don't enjoy, and
she said that that's altogether too frivolous an approach to
volunteering. If it isn't work, they shouldn't be doing it.
And I said that's not the way to look at it. These people have
to get something from it as well as giving, and by enjoyment I
simply mean the sense of giving.
Morris: That doesn't mean it isn't hard work.
Charles: That's exactly right.
Morris: Did this young woman stay with the organization?
Charles: She may have. I didn't, because I always have a belief when
you've organized something, it has to take off on its own.
You've got to stay behind the scenes and help when they need
it but not keep running it.
Morris: Right. I was thinking about during the organizing and initial
period, if there were disaf fections and any drop-off s in the
original —
179
Charles: I don't really think so. But you know, I have a theory that in
organizational work you just don't worry too much about dissident
people. You could spend days and hours trying to smooth the
problems of people who've taken issue and left you. It's just
better to go get a new person. And you usually find out
they are people who have behaved that way in other roganizations.
Perennial dissidents.
Morris: That's interesting.
Charles: It's really not surprising to me at all when a person gets very
difficult to deal with to find that you've been warned by others,
"Don't ask that person into your organization. You'll just have
nothing but trouble." Some people just tend to store it up and
keep it going. Good will is essential in these things. I didn't
mind being dictatorial since I had no intention of remaining the
dictator for very long. That's the point about — I believe that
when you start to found something you have to stay with it long
enough to be sure it's going to live, and to keep it going to
get its own life. But you cannot remain at the head for a long
time. This is hard for people to understand very well. No matter
how effective you are.
Morris: That's almost a paradox. If you've got a very strong person
setting something up who knows just how it ought to be, how do
people then develop the confidence in what they're doing in
order to be able to come along as successors?
Charles: Well, you have to start that out very early and usually what you
do in a group at the beginning is to try to identify the people
who would take responsibility for certain aspects. It really
just worked like a charm.
Morris: What are the clues that somebody will take on a major responsibility?
Charles: You have to very directly ask them. Describe what it is that you
want done. Of course, it is always better not to do that in a
public meeting. If I knew at the next meeting I was going to
ask Mrs. Joe Doakes to become responsible for getting bylaws
together, I would call that person before the meeting and say,
"I'm going to ask you in the meeting to take on the bylaws, and
we'll appoint you a committee. It's awfully hard work, and I
want to be sure that you will accept." Because if you have a
lot of turn-downs, particularly at a meeting, that isn't good for
the organization.
180
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles ;
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
[Interview 7: 1 November 1977 ]##
What struck me was that you said that you felt that part of the
strength of the Stanford auxiliary was that there were people
you could call on that you had worked with in other organizations.
Yes.
I wondered if that is the idea that is called a network.
I would think it probably is. I haven't mentioned to you that
I worked a great deal with Arlene Daniels on her material on
volunteers, but I'm sure I don't agree with every conclusion
she has reached. I was rather startled when you said to me that
volunteers learned what they might be able to do professionally
by doing volunteer work, that Arlene I think had suggested that.
But I was going to say that I would very much point out that I
believe that when volunteers go into volunteer work with some
extra ambition in mind, it doesn't make them good volunteers at
all. It may in their background amount to a great deal for them.
I think it has been useful to young people doing volunteer work
and seeing what the work is in a hospital, for instance.
Career exploration kind of thing?
Yes. That's done a good deal here. I think many of them have
gone into it after that experience. But I think that volunteers
really must go in because they want to do something for somebody
else. If they're doing something for themselves all the time, in
that way I don't believe it makes for a successful operation.
It actually interferes?
I think so. You see, one of the things I most feared when I was
doing volunteer work myself a great deal, was finding that certain
people who had ulterior motives were coming into it. It really
frightens you; you don't know what it is they're going to try and
do. They're not really dedicated to the thing they're doing in
a way that you need.
What kinds of other motives are there besides — ?
The League of Women Voters was a great temptation to people who
181
Charles: wanted to go into politics or to make the acquaintance of people
at city hall and people who are in politics. They would come in
and volunteer to do the observing which is what members do — people
to watch the boards and commissions in operation. But we would
soon find out about that if somebody was glad-handing everybody
and generally acting like a follower, rather than just being
there in a judicial way to listen to what was going on. So
you have to call a halt to that, and you have to protect your
organization that way from people trying to make use —
Well, for instance, in hospital work sometimes there are
people who have a doctor husband or are related to doctors, who
would like to advance their husband's welfare by their position
in an auxiliary. And that doesn't work either.
Morris: Your experience has been that usually people who do have an
ulterior motive don't work out well on the job?
Charles: Yes. Their interest in the welfare of the group to whom you're
giving is not really paramount.
Morris: What do you do in a case like that?
Charles : You have to sit down and talk to them frankly and reason with
them if you can. Either they quit in a huff, which is the best
possible solution — [Laughs]
Morris: So there are times when it's better to have less volunteers?
Charles: Oh, you bet, yes. You need to be careful about those things.
Morris: Do people with such other kinds of motives ever actually stay
around long enough to become involved in important board
decisions?
Charles: No, not really. You detected them long since, so you would just
have to be sure they didn't get onto your board, or misrepresent
you to the public.
Morris: How does that compare with the other kind of person you mentioned
that you invite to be on a board because they have a position or
a name?
Charles: Yes. Well, they're very different. They're people who are
where they want to be, and are secure. They're not trying to
use you as a stepping stone somewhere. I remember telling
somebody once that when you are invited to be on a board you
should consider, are you going to be able to help them, or are
you going on that board to help yourself in some way? Try to
182
Charles: be honest about it. We're not always willing to be.
Morris: Is this the kind of thing you could ask the younger women,
newcomers to the group?
Charles: Oh no, you never ask anybody, you just observe what they do and
they give themselves away very rapidly because of their seeking
to be involved in certain activities they think will be more
conducive to their getting acquainted with people they want to
know whom they think are important. Those people are just a
nuisance. They start calling people up and trying to get on
intimate terms with people who work in the auxiliary, and this
doesn't work. Although you make fine friendships in volunteer
work, it's not because anybody is going to capitalize on it.
It's because you like the way the other person looks and behaves,
and admire them.
I was always pleased when my friendship with people with
great skill was such that they would come to help me with an
organization when I asked for it, but I didn't intend for them
to have any place in it, and they didn't want any place in it — they
were already so busy that having another job to do would not —
Morris: They wouldn't take something on just to have another job?
Charles: No. And the organization needed their position in the community,
you see.
Morris: Is this part of this kind of a network that the people in it share
the same idea of how a community should function?
Charles: No, not necessarily. Because what the real network is, you seek
for people who have become experts in certain aspects of community
work, and get them to help you if they will.
Morris: Does that sometimes work the other way around, that they then come
to you and — ?
Charles: Certainly, absolutely, you expect that. If you're asking them
to give their time you've got to be willing to give yours to do
something that would please them. So I've always stood ready to
do just that when anybody wanted me to.
Morris: Where did you first observe this kind of network in action, in
operation?
Charles: I would say, if you're sensitive to those things, the minute I
got into administrative positions, in regard to whatever organizatioi
I was working for. You begin to see and begin to recognize the
183
Charles: ability in other people.
Morris: I wondered if it might be something that Mrs. Mclaughlin had
introduced you to.
Charles: No, I don't think so. Mrs. Mclaughlin and I really didn't do
much philosophizing about these things. We just talked some
about what she had done as a matter of interest.
184
Transition — Hospital Board of Directors////
[Interview 8: 8 November 1977]
Morris: We were going to go on today with hospital auxiliaries.
Before we get into that, you mentioned just as we turned off
the tape the other day that no one wants to join a dying
organization. That struck me as a very interesting phrase.
I wonder if you could expand on that. Are there any signs of
when an organization is going down?
Charles : The thing at that time was that with Stanford having announced
that they were leaving we were starting an auxiliary up here, it
was necessary to put some extra effort into it. But it seemed
to me it was not going to hurt Stanford down on the campus to
have a good successful auxiliary up here. And the loyalty to
the hospital was just the same as the loyalty to the university.
There were many, many people who loved that old hospital, and
loved the doctors who had worked there.
I thought I would say something about the new board of the
hospital. They made us put a member of the auxiliary on the
new board for the hospital. There had previously been a board
composed only of doctors, and it was not tightly managed. Well,
the first thing we started to do was to go over the budget with
a fine tooth comb, and all of us just pored over that. I had
noticed that the hospital dining room where doctors ate (this
was not in the hospital but for people who paid for their
lunches) —
Morris: Visitors?
Charles: Yes, or I suppose staff working there. It was losing money and
185
Charles: I couldn't understand that. The superintendent of the hospital
was a very appealing man, a slight, good-natured sort of fellow,
highly nervous. He called everybody doctor. He called me doctor
the minute I started telling him anything about what I thought the
hospital ought to do. One day we were talking this over at a
board meeting — he came to all our beard meetings — I said I called
the attention of the board to my realization, and I expected they
had noticed it too, the dining room was something I felt they
could do something about immediately.
And the superintendent said, "Oh, well, yes, doctor," he
said to me. "Yes, doctor, absolutely. All I have to do is
charge fifteen cents more a sandwich and it will take care of
itself." "But," he said, "The doctors wouldn't like that." We
all looked at him in some astonishment and he said, "No, they
wouldn't like that. They've set the prices for that dining
room."
So Fred Merrill, who had been good enough to take the
chairmanship of the new board said, "We're going to try to set
up a new kind of a budget now, so if this can be done this way,
you do it and I'll account for the doctors." So, he didn't have
any difficulty with speaking to them about this.
Morris : How did the doctors respond to having laymen — ?
Charles: They were delighted. It hadn't occurred to them to do it.
I imagine, I don't know (I know nothing about the history of
other hospitals) , but I imagine that in many cases it was the
doctors who composed the managing board, but it isn't done now.
The way the later hospitals were run, you always had a sort of
a community board. So they were delighted for us to take some
responsibility off their shoulders. So, we found other little
places where a little financial reform would not do any great
harm to anybody.
Morris: Was your thought to start in small ways?
Charles: Yes. Not to try to knock everything down approach. We just
found lots of little loopholes where we thought it could be
managed better. And the administrator was a very competent
fellow, and very appealing in his way. He was really devoted
to the doctors.
Morris: Was he a medical man himself?
Charles: No, he was not. That was quite a step they had taken, because
up until that time, the hospital administrators were all doctors,
but now it's more of a lay job, and I heard that a daughter of a
186
Charles: friend of mine was studying hospital administration, getting a
master's degree.
Morris: Because the feeling is that more business management skills are
needed?
Charles: Yes. And the interests of everybody have to be considered, not
only the doctors. The doctors were concerned, of course, with
the proper equipment for all the operating rooms and that sort
of thing. Of course lay people are concerned about that, but
they want to be sure that people are paid properly and not
extravagantly.
Morris: Were the salaries for the employees one of the loopholes that
you were interested in?
Charles: No, they seemed to be quite adequate. I think we ended by
raising the salaries. Hospital employees' salaries are very
standardized, I think. But not every hospital will tell the
other hospital what they do or what they pay or how they run
it, you know. It's very interesting. I was in the Community
Chest at that time. The Community Chest made grants to all the
hospitals to assist with the indigent patients they cared for.
They would try to read the budget of a given hospital, and
wonder how that compared to any hospital's budget. You'd call
another hospital to see how they did it, and you would get
nowhere.
Morris : Why do you suppose that is?
Charles: I don't know, it's just like does Gimbel's tell —
Morris: — Macy's! [Laughter]
Charles: Macy's, yes, and I think there was a very strong feeling. I
don't know that it's much improved nowadays, but in any case,
it seemed as if there would be many advantages in trying to
understand how people did the best possible job of management.
Morris: They didn't keep in touch with the other hospitals in town to
exchange ideas?
Charles: No. We used to have, and most organizations do that, you
know, in town. Similar organizations have their own little
groups that meet and discuss how they manage things .
Morris: Do you suppose that that custom of not letting other hospitals
know what your hospital is doing may have a bearing on the
187
Morris: situation we seem to have gotten into now where there are more
hospital beds than needed, and some question about — ?
Charles: No, I don't understand that. Somebody has to analyze why that
should have happened, because we have had a considerable study
on the subject. I think there is a hospital commission in this
state.
Morris: Yes, there is.
Becoming Presbyterian Hospital
Morris: When you went on the board, was it still the Stanford Hospital
board?
Charles: Yes.
Morris: And did you stay on when it became the Presbyterian Hospital?
Charles: I stayed on for a little while, but my close association with
Stanford made me not very welcome with some of the excitable
Presbyterians who came in. They said, "She can't be loyal to
Stanford and to us." So, I was eased off with great courtesy,
you know. I was on the board of trustees at that time.
Morris: For the university?
Charles: For the university.
Morris: Leslie Luttgens mentioned something about there having been
some overtures at one point from the University of the Pacific.
Charles: Well, I think the University of the Pacific was anxious to extend
its image into the Bay Area, if they could, and they did acquire
the dental hospital. We had a dental hospital in connection
with Stanford. The properties up here were going to be very hard
to dispose of. Nobody could really disagree with the Stanford
University for being willing to let the University of the Pacific
take that over. It was a very well-managed hospital — the dentists
had done it. It was for training dentists. One of the
concerns was if the Presybyterians were going to continue as
a training hospital, then they had to have some academic base.
Morris: But the decision was not to move the dental school to Palo Alto?
Charles: Yes, true. That wasn't involved in the whole move, it was
188
Charles: purely on the basis of the medical side that they were going
to — they were taking the hospital down to Palo Alto.
The Presbyterians coming in was a little bit later because,
as you know, the University of the Pacific if anything is
affiliated with the Methodist church. And the Presbyterians
are very proud of the institutions that they support, as they
should be. In the early days of the organization some
Presbyterians were drawn into it — unknowingly, there was no
thought about the Presbyterians coming in as a possible purchaser,
but when those who were in saw what was happening and realized how
much many of the doctors who did not want to go down to Palo
Alto wanted a hospital to be that was theirs, they could see that
they could come in and perhaps provide that place by taking over
the old properties.
Morris : Had there been a Presbyterians medical facility before they took
over the Stanford properties?
Charles: I think there had been in other palces. Presbyterian Hospital
is one of the big ones in New York, I believe, so that they had
some precedent for that.
Morris: Would those be discussions that you'd been involved with as a
member of the Stanford Hospital Board? The discussions with the
Presbyterians.
Charles: No, that would have been done on the basis of the trustees.
The trustees had appointed a special committee on the hospital
which would deal with that subject. It wouldn't be the new
hospital board, which was quite correct, because it was too
new and it was the whole interest of Stanford that had to be
considered in making such an arrangement.
Morris: Were you on that hospital committee as a trustee?
Charles: I just don't remember. I may well have been.
Morris: I would imagine that getting the auxiliary working would be a
pretty full-time job.
Charles: Yes, it was a lot of work.
Morris: You said that there were some excitable Presbyterians.
Charles: I meant to say that they got quite alarmed about my trying to
serve both on the hospital board and on the Stanford board.
They thought that if Stanford was going to start a new hospital
189
Charles: down at Palo Alto, they thought it was impossible for me to be
fair to both.
I couldn't take it seriously at first. When I got wind that
that was what was going on, I was perfectly willing to bow out
because I have always been on too many boards anyway. They've
made a great success of things over here, you know.
Morris: Was it the lay people, or the medical people, who were concerned
about your loyalties?
Charles: It was the lay members of the board. But that was all right, it
really wasn't offensive to me at all. And I don't think they
meant to be offensive. They just thought it was a perfectly
reasonable consideration. It was a surprise to me because usually
I am on the end of being persuaded to do something. And when I
realized that they were not keen about my staying on, I got
off quickly.
Morris: That's remarkably fair-minded of you.
Charles: No, it isn't. It just takes a little common sense, I think, to
realize — to be able to see how it looks from the other fellow's
point of view, that's the whole thing in life, it's what you've
got to do all the time, I think. So, that's what I've always
tried to do in my community \ork. And I think the Presbyterians
did a really heroic thing in restoring and making it possible
for the doctors to have a hospital.
I'm trying to remember how they solved the academic problem.
I think they have some association with the University of the
Pacific. We'll have to get Fred Merrill to tell us about that,
I think.
Morris: His name keeps coming up as I talk to people.
Charles: Yes, he's been a wonderful civic worker here in San Francisco,
and a fine worker for Stanford, too.
Morris: He's a fellow alumnus?
Charles: Oh, yes. He was not elected to the board of trustees until
after all this. But he is on the board of trustees, or I
guess all of us are off now, we're so far overage. But in
any case, he was on for a while.
Morris: He's one of the people that you worked with in a number of things,
isn't he?
190
Charles: Oh, my, yes. I've had many associations with Fred. He's a very
broad-gauge man, and a very capable worker in the welfare field.
He understands something about people's needs — you know, sometimes
businessmen don't. I'm always so keen on the charitable ends of
things.
Morris: I remember when we were talking about the Rosenberg Foundation,
you said the businessmen tended to look at the financial side of
things, and that was their primary criterion.
Charles: Right. But Fred always had a broad way of looking at everything.
I really admire him, and do admire him tremendously. He's retired
now completely. He was an executive of the Firemen's Fund.
Morris: Would he have been the kind of person who would have worked with
people in the Presbyterian church?
Charles: Oh, I think so, because he was certainly on whatever hospital
committee was appointed. I don't think the trustees confined
their appointment there to just the people on the board. They
had people like Fred Merrill, and others who were interested in
the welfare of the hospital up here, too.
Morris: I was wondering if it would be the kind of thing where somebody
who was also active in the Presbyterian church structure and
organization — ?
Charles: Oh my, yes. They weren't appointed on the Stanford committee,
they had their own committee. It was they with whom we had to
work, you see. But it was a very amicable relationship and
effort to work everything out.
Morris: That would be worth pursuing for a church organization, how they
go about deciding to move in and take on a major responsibility.
Charles: The organization of the Presbyterian church, as I understand it,
well, they're all different. There is no routine organization
for a church. They would use words that were strange to me,
like "synod," whatever that was. I am a Methodist. They
would have to get permission — I suppose they went all the way
up to the top echelon in order to get permission for such a
large enterprise as this.
But I can't answer too many questions about that because it
was not my responsibility.
Morris: So you retired gracefully from that board.
Charles: Indeed I did.
191
Morris: But you did lend a hand with the starting of the auxiliary —
Charles: I was with the auxiliary all the time. I was the first president
of the auxiliary and then Leslie was, later on [1960-1962]. And
then I told you, I think, earlier about the time that the
Auxiliary wanted me to run for the nominating committee they were
setting up. They had set up a new — the best way of putting
people on a nominating committee is to have them elected instead
of appointed, which was what I was always used to. So, the person
who asked me said, "Of course, you'll just win immediately."
"But," she said, "I'd much appreciate it if you'd run." I said,
"Oh, no, I won't even get many votes," and I was quite correct.
I lost completely. Nobody knew me at all. Even within the two
or three years that I had not been active after I got out of the
presidency. You know, glory is a very short-lived thing. So, I
was not at all painted when I found that I was a complete flop in
running for a member of the nominating committee because it meant
that the auxiliary was going on its own.
Pattern for Other Hospital Auxiliaries
Morris: What from the San Francisco Stanford auxiliary was useful in
helping start a Palo Alto auxiliary?
Charles: I didn't really help them, they did it down there completely.
The only way I once helped them very much was when they were
having great difficulty with their director of volunteers,
within the hospital, whom the hospital put in their budget
instead of having to pay it from the auxiliary money, because
our money was pretty hard to come by. We had to raise it
through dues or parties.
Morris: What happened with the staff person who was head of the Palo
Alto volunteers?
Charles: What had happened was that they came up to see me, some members
of the auxiliary, and asked me if I could tell them what to do
because they were having difficulty with the director of
volunteers. She was doing something the board didn't approve
of. So I said, "How many of you go to see her when you want to
tell her what she's doing wrong." "Oh," they said, "We take
two or three people."
I said, "Well, you must not do that. You must talk one
to one with a person when you're trying to correct them. They
don't like it when people are sitting around listening to what
you're saying."
192
Charles: And it worked very well. As soon as they were persuaded that was
the way to go at it, they immediately straightened out their
relationship with this woman who was very capable, and whom
they didn't want to get rid of, they just wanted to see if they
couldn't put her straight as to what it was the board of the
auxiliary wanted done that wasn't being done, or what was being
done that they didn't approve of.
Morris: Was it a matter that the board was- unhappy about the director's
relationship to the board?
Charles: To the volunteers. Something that was being directed in the
hospital was not what they wanted. It all worked out very simply
once they just reduced the number of people who tried to tell this
poor woman what her shortcomings were. You know, you really can't
do it that way.
Morris: How do you go about doing this? You've got a staff person who's
got strong ideas and ability, but she's not doing what the
organization wants. How do you go about doing that without
alienating the staff person?
Charles: You do the best you can. You just get an appointment and see her
on an occasion when she's not going to be embarrassed by anybody
else being there, when she can speak up clearly to you and tell
you why she's doing it that way, and you try to explain the
reasons why from your point of view it's the wrong way to go
at it. But sometimes she's right and you're not, because she's
on the ground and you're not. So they were able to work out
their differences. She was right in some ways, and they were
right in the others, so it was a compromise. You know, really
all you have to do is to try and think about how it looks to
the other fellow. And you can do wonders.
I didn' t have any special knowledge at that time about any
of these things. But I just tried to imagine how a person, the
staff person would view it, and how you could avoid embarrassing
her because you can't get any place with anybody if you
embarrass him or her.
Morris: That's true. What about the fact that board members change from
year to year, but your executive director and other staff, with
luck, stay on?
Charles : Right .
Morris: Does that make it more difficult sometimes, for the board to
convey its — ?
193
Charles: No, it really doesn't, because you have to make up your mind
who is going to be the one that always talks to the director,
especially when there are any problems. You can't have the whole
board, or any member of the board going to her and trying to
straighten things out on their own. I remember when I was
president of the League of Women Voters, we always had one
employee only, and that was the secretary in the office.
The first thing you had to do with the board of the League
was to be sure that they understood that if there was need to
correct this secretary, or change the way she was working, the
president would do that. That nobody else on the board would
undertake to interfere in those operations. I don't know why
people didn't just naturally understand that.
Morris: You would think so, except that sometimes they might think it
would be easier to solve if they just went themselves quietly and
said, "What you're doing gives me a pain."
Charles: Well, you can't run things that way. You have to have a kind of
hierarchy of things, and you have to get the agreement of the
hospital, and the doctors, too, that they won't do that. If
there is anything that they don't like about what the auxiliary
is doing, they must come and talk to the auxiliary and not to
staff, to correct them, because the auxiliary staff's orders are
coming from the board of the auxiliary. You just have to observe
the amenities of the situation.
Morris: What kind of person do you usually find as the director of
volunteers?
Charles: At that time we were just feeling our way as everybody was in
the business—sometimes you could find a person who had worked
as a volunteer. You would need somebody who would try to
understand the professionalism of the situation, but also how it
is to be a volunteer, because some staff people don't have any
idea how to work with volunteers.
The executive director of the volunteers has to be the kind
of person who can understand when a volunteer has a sick child
and can't come in, and that sort of thing. She also has to carry
on a relationship with other staff people in the hospital, so
that she understands the professionalism of the situation,
because she can very often observe when the volunteers are doing
things that the nurses couldn't tolerate. And even though the
nurses might not complain to anybody, she might see that person
and be able to — It would then be up to, I believe, the
executive director of the volunteers to come talk to the president
of the board of the auxiliary, and say, "I believe we're going to
194
Charles: have some serious trouble in the operating rooms if the volunteers
don't understand this, that, and the other thing."
So, you end up with making some very strict rules as to
where volunteers can venture in a hospital, and where they can't.
Bylaws are in reality an assembling of do's and don'ts for the
smooth running of the organization. When you're really connected
with anything as professional and serious as a hospital is, you've
got to observe those things. After all, the volunteers are not
medical people. They can't give you a diagnosis of your case,
even if they think they can.
Morris: At what point did the hospital auxiliary begin raising money for
the hospital needs in addition to for the volunteer program?
Charles: That is taken care of very quickly. You try to make your dues
sufficient to care for your own program. The dues are not
designed especially to purchase things for the hospital. The
hospital is then requested to let you know what they would like
the auxiliary to do for them. They might like a new piece of
machinery or equipment that they feel they can't afford.
Morris: Was that a part of the reason for the auxiliary from the
beginning, to raise money?
Charles: No, not necessarily, but it always has worked out that way.
And, of course, you have to have a sensible hospital administrator
who is not going immediately to see the auxiliary as a source of
extra funds for him, because nothing breaks down the good
relationship as that sort of demand, so to speak.
Morris: If the volunteers feel they're primarily money makers?
Charles: Yes, that's right. The most important thing the volunteers do
is in relation to the hospital's good will in the community.
They carry it out out of the hospital among their friends,
their opinions of the work the hospital is doing, and whether
it is a pleasant place to be. What they may say at a casual
moment is more important than anything that the hospital can
try to disseminate.
Morris: Is the theory behind that at some point most of the citizens
in the community are going to be patients in some hospital
or other?
Charles: Oh, I think so, yes.
Morris: Did you ever think of it that way?
195
Charles: Yes, of course, you knew. A hospital is naturally a community
concern. You never know when some relation of yours, or a child
or anybody, may be taken care of by any hospital in the community.
And every citizen must feel some responsibility for what is done
in every hospital in town. Not only the public hospitals, but
the private hospitals also have their service they give to the
citizens.
Morris: Right. Did you have a part in setting up the auxiliary at
San Francisco General Hospital?
Charles: Indeed I did. That was really a very interesting situation there.
The hospital, the General Hospital in San Francisco, I think still
is under the direction of the chief administrative officer of the
city. Rather than having a separate board the hospital is under
the general operations of the city, and the Board of Health.
Anyway, there was a woman who was very much interested in
welfare at General Hospital and she had gone out there and tried
to set up some volunteer work, feeling that volunteers could be
positively helpful out there where there weren't quite enough
people helping, being able to help. So she herself did volunteer
work, and gradually began bringing in little groups to do it.
Then she decided she wanted to start an auxiliary. And the
then-chief administrative officer in San Francisco said, "I
won't have women meddling in our affairs." And so that was that.
Morris: Was this a woman you were acquainted with?
Charles: No, not at that time. And she started talking about it to
everybody she could find, about her ill-reception. She saw
correctly what had to happen, which is that people of some
prestige in the community would have to request an auxiliary
be established out there. She would then help, but she saw
that you just couldn't go out there —
Morris: You needed some clout.
Charles: You had to, to start it. And so Mrs. Nion Tucker [Phyllis] and
Mrs. William Roth [Lurline] and a few people like that were
asked to set up a committee to start an auxiliary. And at some
point I was invited on the committee because I had started this
other auxiliary and they thought I knew something about doing
it. So we really pitched in and got to work on it, setting up
196
Charles: an organization. Then it was Mrs. Tucker, I think, who had the
bright idea of inviting Mrs. Clifton to be the director of
volunteers.
Morris: Now, is she the lady who had been trying to do something?
Charles: No, no, she was a person who had great experience in doing welfare
work around San Francisco. She had worked with juvenile court.
She had also worked with what was called the Children's Protective
Agency at that time. That was a marvelous idea, because nobody
could have done what she did out there. At least, this is a
foolish thing to say because I think they have quite a good
director now, who has taken Mrs. Clifton's place.
I was president of that auxiliary for a time. Phyllis
Tucker was the first president, and I think I was the next
one.
Morris: And that is Bill Roth's mother — Lurline?
Charles: Yes, she's a wonderful woman, and so is Phyllis.
Morris: Mrs. Tucker and Mrs. Roth weren't on the hospital advisory
committee, they were asked as community leaders?
Charles: Yes, to help start an auxiliary. That's right. The Advisory
Board of Health was — by that time I had been on it for many
years— really had nothing to do with that at all. We were
delighted that there was going to be an auxiliary out there,
but my happening to be on that was irrelevant.
[interruption for tea]
Morris: You also lent a hand, did you, to St. Joseph's Hospital?
Charles: Oh, well, yes, a number of other hospitals called me at times to
look over their organization to see if I had ideas for
improvement, or what they should do about it. I enjoyed doing
that very much. And, of course, I was very flattered that
anybody wanted my attention. I used to make speeches all up
and down the state to hospital volunteers, sort of inspiring
them with a sense of dedication, I think. Because I believe
that women need volunteer work in their lives.
197
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
Spiritual Rewards, Fellowship, Social Responsibility
Charles: I think if women don't give something of themselves to somebody
else, they suffer acutely without knowing what's the matter with
themselves.
Morris: Even with all the kind of needs there are in the family and
children — ?
Charles: In their homes. It's not the same thing as to give to people who
can't possibly repay you, who don't even know that you're doing
it for them. It is this kind of charitable giving that is, I
think, a factor in one's "healthy mindedness," as William James
calls it.
A way of not being self-centered?
Right.
Of seeing yourself in a different perspective?
And I think it has some spiritual aspects to it which Americans
steer away from, you know. They don't like to admit that they have
any such reason for doing anything or that anybody else has.
They have a strong sense of wariness about the whole religious
question.
Why do you suppose?
I think part of it is probably our sense of the separation of
religion and state that we shouldn't try to drag anybody's
religion into anything that they do. I certainly never talked
about the religious inspiration when I talked about volunteers,
but I talked about — There's a marvelous quotation, you know,
in Oliver Wendell Holmes1 letters. He wanted to be part of the
action and the passion of his times. I used to quote that to
my volunteers and say there's no way you can get as close to what
is happening in life around you than to be a volunteer in some
organization you believe in. In a big general hospital, you
know, life is just flowing all around you. So many things that
happen are out of our experience unless we happen to be working
somewhere where we see them happening.
Morris: That's really a marvellous statement.
Charles: I thought so, yes.
Morris: It catches I think, the feeling that seems to have motivated
Morris :
Charles:
198
Morris: you in so many things.
Charles: Well, I think everybody is responsible to everybody for everything.
I never have felt that you could limit your responsibility to a
group immediately around you. I think we all have to try to
extend what abilities we have to helping anybody who comes into
our care — our neighbors so to speak, would be the first people
who come close to us and whom we see need help. And I don't
mean that you can help everybody who comes to you, but I do mean
that if you know enough about them and you can see how you can
really help them (you can't always help people if you don't know
enough about them to know what is the most helpful thing you
can do for them) —
Morris: And that concept of neighbor extends to things that need doing
in the whole, the larger community?
Charles: In the whole community. Well, you see, our literal neighbors
are not deprived any more. We all tend to be segregated into
our own economic class, and it's very seldom that we have somebody
living next door who needs material things.
##
[On reading the transcript, Mrs. Charles added the following passage, written
on June 14, 1978]
Intentions and Close Encounters in the World of Volunteer Work
Charles: This is not a world in which you can blissfully sleep it out,
it is perhaps more necessary than in other working worlds that
one is aware and alert at all times. Freedom is not freedom
from thinking which needs planning and pondering over events until
their true meaning comes to light to you. Relationships are
all important, not only with those you are helping (if you are)
but with those with whom you come in contact who may fall in
neither of those categories. All life is enhanced by being
alert and aware and willing to think, but particularly here
in the world of volunteers, where nobody is compelled to work
or paid for it except in enjoyment or self-esteem. Honors are
meaningless when the recipient believes they are earned and
courting them or anticipating them is unhealthy in many ways.
They are no substitute for love or friendship from others and
are not earned but like the Grace of God they come from elsewhere.
199
Charles: Our own dissemination of love is within our power, and grows with
exercise. Most of the women I came to know in volunteer work were
happy women and I have come to believe that giving of oneself in
service of some kind is necessary for women's mental health. Now
Dr. Jean Baker Miller in her Toward a New Psychology of Women makes
clear that actually such a need is not only in women but in all
humans, and that it is only society's traditional division of
labor between men's work and women's work that creates an
apparent separation of qualities.* This is true to my observation
and I am deeply appreciative of the sound research she has done
and is doing. I have too academic a side of my nature not to
feel the need of a little support in putting forth my theories.
[And on February 20, 1978, Mrs. Charles wrote for inclusion in this memoir:]
Nowadays it is assumed that the household is a responsibility of
both husband and wife, but most of us, I think, rather felt that
if the husband were to be still responsible for the family
income, then the wife should retain her original responsibility
for the household and so on. For myself, I had observed
households where the young husband got into the household
management — and I found it most unattractive. We all had our
reasons for going at the great liberation as we did, "the heart
has its reasons, which reason knows not of — "
When our daughters were grown, and married with children, my
husband was deeply concerned with their welfare and how we could
help with all their children. I said, "I wish you'd felt such
deep concern about me when I was in that situation."
"Well," he said, with the dry offbeat humor I always
enjoyed, "At the time I was worried about young husbands."
But what experiences I have had! I always tried to keep my
family amused and interested in my activities away from home.
One night I reported the remark made by a perennial candidate
for the state legislature at a candidates' meeting at which I
was presiding for the League of Women Voters. After my intro
duction he, jolly soul that he was, said, "Ladies and gentlemen,
I want you to know that this lady" — pointing to me — "has the
heart of a lion!"
At this recounting at the dinner table, our younger daughter
said, "And did you roar?" at which my husband and I both did
roar. This is the daughter who said to me the other day when I
was making my usual response about the age of someone I knew.
"Now, Mother. Before you say, 'Oh, somewhere in her forties,'
I must remind you that both of your daughters are in their
forties."
200
Charles: I was astonished. "But how can your father and I possibly have
children in their forties? It's incredible I"
#//
Charles: I have always believed that the use of our house was a very important
aspect of my work in any organization. I've tried to make my
fellow volunteers a part of the warmth of it, because I believe
that when people join an organization they need something more
than just what they're going to do. They need a feeling of
fellowship and companionship, and some realization of what their
individual situation is.
We were recruiting some people to do some addressing of
envelopes for a party one time (I always said I would serve a
little food, tea or coffee. If they would like to come here we
would do the addressing here and I would extend my dining room
table), so a couple of dozen people came, and I didn't realize
till much later, and I don't remember how I did find this out,
but one of these people who came was actually hungry — kind of an
elderly person who really didn't have enough to eat, and was Just
hoping I would provide enough for this little snack I was having
to tide her over. It never crossed my mind, you know. And that
was valuable information for me to have, and a rather stupid
thing for me to have to admit.
Later on when we were recruiting volunteers for the General
Hospital, Mrs. Clifton would perceive that some of them were what
she called "pensioners;" they were probably living on pensions
from something or other, but could not afford the carfare out
there and back. And she would ask the auxiliary if we would
pay the carfare of the volunteers who really couldn't afford
it. So we did do that, and that would have been a brand new
idea to me, you know. You have so much to learn when you grow
up in our great middle class in this country, where things have
been comfortable for you all your life.
Morris: How did the pensioners feel about getting carfare from the
volunteer organization?
Charles: It didn't bother them. Mrs. Clifton would know exactly how to
say that this is part of what we like to do for our volunteers.
There was never any difficulty in persuading them to accept that.
Morris: It didn't make any feeling of difference between the volunteers
who got carfare and the volunteers who could afford it?
Charles: We would just make it available to anybody, I think — I don't
know how Olga handled that. She was very understanding of these
201
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles!
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles;
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
people and knew how to make the approach.
It's a really timely topic because one of the questions you hear
now is that it would be a good thing to involve some of the people
who are out of work in volunteer activities, for their benefit
as well as for the volunteer work, but how are they going to be
able to afford to do it if we don't pay them. Other people are
saying that's not real volunteer work —
You can't make blanket statements like that, I've always thought.
You really have to look at the situation.
Giving advice to other hospital auxiliaries did you find that
there were many differences between them in the kinds of work
they did, and — ?
No, very few. They're really all doing the same thing. But in a
big public hospital you see patients in need of such things as a
night garment, toothpaste, bedroom slippers, or some things we
take for granted.
How about any kind of liaison between hospital volunteers?
Well, yes. Nowadays, I believe, there is a good deal. I was
going to say also the directors of volunteers have become quite
professional, and they have an association which meets periodically,
once a month or something of that sort, and discuss what they do
and how it could be done better.
Have you kept contact, or kept an eye on what hospital auxiliaries
are doing?
No, I really haven't. I'm a great believer in absolutely putting
behind you what you've done, and not carrying it along with you as
something for you to watch out for. It makes you very unpopular.
I had my first taste for that when I was at college.
Really?
In my sorority we always had a few "old girls" who came back to
be sure we were doing everything the way they thought we should.
We never were, of course.
Not doing things the way you should?
Not the way the "old girls" thought we should, because times
change, of course. And I just thought to myself, "I am never
going to be guilty of that sort of thing." But one day I had
a very amusing experience in that regard. I met a young college
202
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
woman who was then a member of the sorority I had belonged to , and
I mentioned that I had been a member. She said, "You should come
down and see how things have changed since your day." And I
thought, "Oh, boy." But I explained to her that I just didn't
think it was a place I wanted to be. ' I suppose it's important
that everybody doesn't feel that way.
Had you had a really unpleasant experience yourself when you were
president of your sorority with the "old girls"?
No, not really unpleasant. But you have to stand up and fight for
what is contemporary. I began my life doing that because of having
all these aunts, and my mother, who were all going to tell me how
to conduct my life and what to do.
My sisters pleased me very much the other day when we were
all, the two of them and I (there are three sisters) when the
three of us were together. And I said to the two of them that
I really had one regret, I felt I had not treated my mother and
mu aunts as kindly as I should have. My little sister, Yardley,
who's the gentlest (my sister Maureen and I are much alike — rather
formidable people, if I may say so) — and Yardley said, "Oh, no,"
she said. "Caroline, you had to. You did it for us."
Because, of course, I did free them from some of the same
kind of close supervision and criticism that is hard on a young
person.
I'm interested that you accept the term "formidable." It bothers
some people.
Oh, it doesn't bother me at all. I always thought Mrs.
Mclaughlin was formidable, and if I could ever be like Mrs.
Mclaughlin I would like any names by which she was called.
Formidable, how do you define that?
I define it as a person who knows — if you're applying it to a
person — where she's going and is going there.
And knows how to get there?
And knows how to get there, yes.
I think it's a remarkably valuable quality. That's why I was
sort of startled when I discovered that some people were not
happy to have it applied to them.
Charles:
[Laughs] When I was in the League of Women Voters I remember one
203
Morris:
Charles :
Charles: of the older women who came in to help with volunteers said,
"Now, Mrs. Charles is a person to be reckoned with."
I really had to chuckle about that. I didn't know exactly
what she meant. But I suppose anybody who is willing to stand up
for what they believe in is to be reckoned with.
Were Mrs. Tucker and the older Mrs. Roth in that same category of
formidable ladies?
Not to the same degree. Yes, they are in one way. Because
they've never actually taken part in the political pulling and
hauling that goes on when you have worked in the League of Women
Voters, or some of these other organizations.
Morris: Would they be of the same generation as Mrs. Mclaughlin?
Charles: Though at least ten years younger —
Morris: But would they have been part of the group that worked with Mrs.
McLaughlin when things needed attending to?
Charles: No, not at all. They lived different lives entirely. Of course,
I don't know where Mrs. Roth grew up. Gaby, I can't remember
whether the Matsons lived in the islands or here.
Morris: I think she did spend quite a lot of time in America.
Charles: Oh, yes, I think so. Phyllis Tucker had always lived a very social
life. She started many of San Francisco's most cherished social
traditions. It's very nice that she's done that, and that's a
very important contribution. I think she is formidable in her
own way, probably. I think Mrs. Roth would be too. Neither
one of those women would be imposed on in any way.
Morris: That's interesting then that they got involved in starting an
auxiliary at San Francisco General.
Charles : Yes .
Morris: Which you would think would be a very useful thing to have on the
community, but not with the same kind of social cachet as a
Stanford Hospital.
Charles: They don't need it, they give social cachet, as you say.
They are already dignified by society's approval.
Morris: But they're willing to take on occasionally —
204
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
Indeed they do.
lovely people.
Both of them are really very generous and
So, Bill Roth comes by it naturally, his concern and interest
for the community.
Well, except he's much more politically liberal than anybody in
his family had ever been. I think there was a tremendous shock
in the ranks when Bill became a Democrat and ran for political
office.
Well, they sent him to Yale, what did they expect?
Yes, I suppose so. He is a lovely man. I really cherished my
friendship with Bill. The last ten or twenty years I haven't
known Bill as well as earlier, but he's a very unusual kind of
a person.
205
13 STANFORD UNIVERSITY TRUSTEE, 1954-1974
[Interview 9: 18 January 1978] «
Appointment and Fellow Trustee
Morris:
Charles:
We are going to talk this morning about your experiences on the
Stanford board of trustees. I was looking through the interview
that we did a couple years ago; you said a few things there that
I wanted to ask you about some more. The first thing is how you
went about orienting yourself to the work of the board. You said
that it took a while to absorb the workings of the university and
how people behave, and how the professors act.
Let me begin a little further back than that. I've been very
fortunate in my temperament that I have never dreamed of honors
I might receive. It's a terrible handicap to do that, because
you can suffer so much. Anything that is subject to the whim of
a number of people, you can't really count on. If it's something
you can achieve by being an expert on this, that or the other
thing, it's different. The custom of the board of trustees when
they elect a new trustee is that the president of the board
calls upon the person selected. Lloyd Dinkelspiel was the president
of the board at that time. One day he telephoned me. I know
horn but not well, and I was very surprised. He just said, "I wonder
if I can come and call on you."
I said, "Well, Lloyd, I don't think it's appropriate for
you to come all the way out here. I will come and call on you at
your office." He became very flustered; he didn't know what to
say. But he said, "No, I'd like to come to see you."
I said, "Well, I'm going to be downtown tomorrow if that
would help." "Well," he said, "All right." I was so astonished
when he told me I'd been elected to the board, subject to my
acceptance, of course, that I merely — I had never even dreamed
206
Charles: of such a thing happening to me. It just seemed to me it was far
away from anything that was a possibility.
Morris: Why did you think that was beyond your expectations?
Charles: I just thought it was a different kind of person than I was. I'm
not a person who's a good fundraiser; I'm a fair fundraiser, but —
Morris: Was that what the Stanford trustees usually — ?
Charles: They need people who can do that easily. I just don't do it
easily. Not only that, but I just thought I didn't have the
qualifications for that. When Lloyd told me what he wanted, I
said, "Lloyd, I just — I'm absolutely astounded." He said,
"There's no one in the community who's done as much for Stanford
and for the community you live in than you have. It would be
impossible to overlook you."
I said, "I would never refuse such an honor. I'd love to
do it, but are you sure you made the right choice?" He said,
"There's no question about that. It's our choice and we've
made it."
Morris: Did you decide right then to take the appointment, or did you
wait to discuss it with Mr. Charles?
Charles: I decided immediately that I would do it if it was in earnest to
me. Because it would be a thrilling — it was a thrilling
experience. Farmer Fuller was on the board at that time. His
son, Farmer, has been on the board almost all during the time that
I've been on, but this was the older Farmer Fuller.
Morris : The second?
Charles: The second.
Morris: Then his son was appointed to the board — ?
Charles: Shortly after I was. He's, of course, Farmer III. We had a most
amsuing incident one year, when his son was graduating. The young
people come up and hand to the announcer their name so they can
call out the names correctly for the diplomas. Young Farmer had
come up and said he was Farmer Fuller IV and that caught the ear
of those kids. Thereafter, you had John Jones I; somebody else
the second. It was really very amusing.
Morris: That's marvelous.
Charles: The whole stadium was just roaring with laughter.
207
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles
Morris :
Is there now a Farmer Fuller V?
I don't know; there may be. I wouldn't say there is or isn't.
I don' t know.
Was the elder, Farmer Fuller II, somebody that you were well
acquainted with?
I was acquainted with him. He was a very, very witty and attractive
man, as is Farmer, his son. He was very much in demand as a
toastmaster at dinners and things. He was president of the
Bohemian Club. One of the very popular citizens around San
Francisco. Id' met him in the course of my earlier, other worthy
causes.
Were you considerably younger than the other members?
The first meeting I went to, I thought I had never seen so many
old men in my life. There was one woman who had been elected a
few years before, a lovely woman with whom I became great friends.
Well, I must go back and say that at the time I was elected, they
had decided to expand the board — the size of it. They were
electing five trustees at once. [Tea is served] They elected
five, of whom two of us were women. They elected four men: Dave
Packard was one of them. All were much younger than I.
David Packard was also a Stanford alum. Wasn't he on the group
of trustees?
Charles;
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles;
Most of us, I think, were, but not all of us at all. Jim Crafts
of Firemen's Fund was elected and he was not an alumnus. I
don't know if I can remember all those who were elected, but in
any case, I particularly remember Dave because he was extremely
kind to me on the board.
In what way?
He wanted me to be appointed chairman of the buildings and
grounds [committee]. I said, "Now look, Dave. You know that
no woman has ever held a job like that on the Stanford trustees."
"No," he said. "But I think you could do it and I want you
to do it." So I was. I don't think I would ever have been
appointed to such a job, and I had a marvelous time doing it.
Good. So Mr. Packard convinced the rest of the board.
Oh, yes. I'd been working with him on that committee,
been the chairman of it and was getting off of it.
He had
208
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles
Morris :
Charles
If five of you came on at the same time, did anybody sit you down
and talk to you about — ?
We didn't have what you might call an orientation, but we had a
lot of written material, which was interesting reading, about the
history of the university. I've always had a policy on any new
board, but particularly, of course, on a board of such importance
as the Stanford board, of not doing much talking til I've been to
about five meetings. They met, at that time, once a month. Here
in San Francisco, which was a great convenience to all of us.
Whereabouts would they meet in San Francisco?
They had an office. Stanford always has an office in San Francisco.
It is now in the Pacific Mutual building, which is on the corner of
California and Kearney. I was chairman of the buildings and grounds
and was the one who informed the board that we had to get new
quarters because we were on top of the Balfour Building at that
time. If the wind blew, the windows rattled, you were in a
constant draft, and there was only one restroom there up on that
floor. The men, of course, had appropriated it for years.
The reason they were very fond of Mae Goodan, who was the
one woman who'd been elected, about two or three years before our
group, she, of course, never made them uncomfortable in any way,
but they couldn't say the same thing for me. In any case, I
informed the board that it was very necessary for us to be in a
place where women could have the use of a restroom and where we
weren't as uncomfortable as we'd come to be in the Balfour
Building.
Do you recall the first of the trustees' meetings you went to?
Yes, I do.
What kind of an experience was that?
I guess our real troubles with the students hadn't yet begun — as
intensely as they were a little later in the sixties. I was very
concerned that the students get a fair hearing and that the
trustees try to understand them a little better than they seemed
to be able to.
But I did hold my comments at those first meetings. I said
to myself, now look, you don't want to be on this board just in
order to impress the men with your willingness to agree with everythl
they do. You want to be on here to discuss your opinion, even if
it's contrary and you lose all your friends, you'd better do that.
So in about two or three meetings, I spoke up and explained to them
209
Charles: that these students they were treating so harshly could very well
be their own children or grandchildren. Which of course they were,
in other places, or even down at Stanford.
It seemed very foolish to me not to try to understand what it
was they were protesting. I said the Vietnam War was more than they
could stand. They did not want to be killed, and this is what the
young people were picketing about, I thought, and it was, too.
Of course, they behaved terribly. They looked so awful in those
hippie days. It was really almost revolting — dirty hair and
dirty clothes, ragged clothes. All of them were children of
people who were very well able to see that they dressed
properly.
Morris: Had you been acquainted with Wallace Sterling before you came on
the trustees?
Charles: Of course. Wally has an amazing memory. He knew most of the
graduates . When you went to somethere where Wally and Anne
were, Wally always knew who you were.
Building and Grounds Committee
Charles :
Morris ;
But I was not acquainted with him more than just a casual
acquaintance, but I must say, it was a marvelous experience,
especially with the buildings and grounds committee. Wally
was especially interested in the buildings on the campus and
having a hand in them. So Wally and I met at eight o'clock in
the mornings.
Having observed the way that the — this was after I'd been
on for a year or two — observed the way the buildings and grounds
committee conducted itself; it seemed to me it was very necessary
that more preliminary work go into it before it ever came to the
board. It was very hard for the board to understand what it was
they wanted to do. The proposals came mostly from the staff.
Sometimes the chairman of the committee would not have even
seen the site — seen what it was they were proposing to do, and
where. So I would set up this committee meeting early, early in
the morning some day, like maybe ten days before the next meeting,
so that we could get something into the agenda that would help
illuminate what they wanted to do. I had also noticed there were
more ill feelings evolved from buildings and grounds than you could
believe.
Why is that?
210
Charles: Isn't it strange? Because people get very emotionally involved
with architecture and you just don't know it until you watch
them. Everybody thinks he's an authority on it, you see.
Morris: Would this be in the faculty that was going to be in the buildings
or was it the trustees themselves?
Charles: Well, no. By the time it got to the trustees, there was no
faculty being considered. There's a certain committee procedure
that things go through. The faculty must look at the plans and
make suggestions. The people who are going to occupy the
building have something to do with it.
Another innovation I made was — we had a very formal way of
selecting the architect. Every architect in the Bay Area wanted
to do something at Stanford. We didn't want just a hodge-podge
of buildings. We wanted things that would have some relation to
each other. We also bore in mind that the alumni were particularly
wedded to the red roofs of Stanford. Every time they heard there
was a building going up that wasn't going to have a red tile roof,
we got wildly critical communications.
Morris: There is a legend, I guess, in the Bay Area that it is an
official Stanford rule that all buildings will have red tile
roofs.
Charles: That isn't correct, no. It was just that we always tried to do
something to maintain the general shape and reaction that you
would get to a building on the campus. But red tile was almost
prohibitively expensive at that time. We discovered right away
that we weren't going to be able to get much of our red tile.
We found a way to put a kind of red colored gravel on the roofs
which gave an impression of red on it.
Morris: Were there any architects on the board of trustees, by chance?
Charles: No. There was an architect who was associated with the planning
office, but he was one of those people who spoke in great
generalities when he talked about planning. He talked to the
trustees about how you'd see this theme would come in and must
be followed. The trustees were not interested in all that
romantic kind of thing, you know. I kept trying to get him down
to brass tacks on what he would say, but I never succeeded.
211
PACE Campaigns and Other Fund Raising
Morris: Was there a major building program going on in the fifties when
you were first on the committee?
Charles: Wally one day said to me, "Do you realize we have spent" (and he'd
say how much it was, something like a hundred and forty million
dollars and buildings) "in your — "
Morris: While you were chairman.
Charles: While I was chairman of the committee. He said, "You've done a
good job, too." We were in a big job of fund raising for buildings.
We were spending it just as fast as we could get it in.
Morris: Is that what I've heard referred to as the PACE campaign?
Charles: Yes, that's exactly what it was. I've forgotten what the dates
of that were.
Morris: When I talked to Mr. Doyle, he mentioned that and I think he told
me it was 1962.
Charles: Yes, I think it was in the sixties.
Morris: Was Pace the name of the person who was chairman of it?
Charles: No, PACE was the — what do you call that when you use the first
initials of something?
Morris: Acronym.
Charles: That's what it was. I've forgotten what the — Program to
something. I'll have to get that out of the files somewhere.*
It was extremely successful. I can't tell you how I admired
the people who were raising the money. They just stayed on the
job and had a marvelous organization that brought all the
alumni in from all over the country. We had hordes of people
working for the university, which is the first time they'd had
such a highly organized campaign.
Plan of Action for a Challenging Era, this five-year
fund raising campaign began in 1965 and reached its $100
million goal in three and a half years.
212
Charles :
Morris :
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles
Morris :
Charles
Herman Phleger was on the board at that time and he used to say
to me, "You know, they're going to talk about what happened in
the Charles era. They'll say that building was built in the
Charles era. I don't know why you had the courage to take a
job like this."
Herman was a great person to tease you in a kind of a dry
way. I always maintained my independence. I didn't get shaken
up by that sort of thing. I'd gotten very used to Herman on the
board. He made some excellent suggestions. One was our university
landleasing program, that we not let it go for so low an amount.
He said, "That land is increasing in value all the time. You've
set your price too low."
The young fellow in charge of the staff would say, "But Mr.
Phleger, we have to lease it." He said, "It will lease at a higher
price." They didn't believe him, but the board voted that he
should do that and they did. And that's exactly what happened.
Was the
board?
landleasing program established while you were on the
Morris :
Yes.
How did that come about?
We needed more buildings. We felt that one of the best ways that
we could use that land around the campus proper before it got
condemned by somebody for school use or something — that's a
hazard you're up against all the time — was to be using it for our
own purposes.
This is the land right along — ?
Along the edge of Stanford, along the periphery.
Along El Camino?
No. It's further back in the hills. I believe there are four
thousand acres in the campus proper. Then we considered the
outlying area available for this leasing program. It just worked
beautifully.
The leases were agreed on to raise the money to start the building
See the Regional Oral History Office's interview with Mr. Phleger.
213
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles;
Morris :
Charles :
program? Was that the idea?
Yes. To raise money for the buildings on campus, you see.
to improve the endowment at the university.
Also
Was that something that President Sterling proposed to the trustees?
Yes. Dr. Sterling would be the one to propose the usage of the
funds raised from what they called the land development committee.
My committee was separate from the committee that was dealing
with the outlying lands. My responsibility was only the campus
lands. It worked very well. There were businessmen, as there
should have been, on the land development committee who knew real
estate values and a very distinguished real estate man of San
Francisco, Mr. Cedric Coldwell, contributed his services as
adviser to land development. He helped us analyze and take
advantage of real estate procedures; understand them. It was
an invaluable service. He was with Coldwell, Coldwell, and
Banker, it was. He didn't have any Stanford connection.
Hasn't his firm been involved in quite a lot of what they call
industrial park development?
Yes. We were the first, I believe.
This land leasing program — is that in addition to the Stanford
Research Institute?
Oh my, yes. That's something entirely different. The land
leasing program was because of the way in which the will was
written. We can't sell anything.
Ever?
No. So we preserve this in perpetuity, in a way, by being able
to lease it. It will return to the university at the conclusion,
unless the leases are renewed, which they all have been. Time
passes so rapidly, you know. But Mr. Phleger was absolutely
right in insisting on our asking that the value of those
leaseholds being increased.
Did you ever use a professional development person, fund raiser,
to help plan some of these — ?
Oh my, we always did. They had an excellent committee that gave
suggestions and a plan for organizing everybody. It was really
very good. I didn't take an active part in that, because my
responsibilities were elsewhere. I don't feel comfortable about
214
Morris:
Charles:
Charles: fund raising.
Morris: Why not?
Charles: I don't know. I never have. It's a terrible thing for me— it's
a humiliation to me — I probably need to have a headshrinker
figure it out. I think it's partly because I'm conscious of the
fact that I don't have enough money to come back with something
that my donors want to raise money for.
If I could go and get a million dollars from someone —
You feel you ought to match it yourself?
Yes. Perhaps I shouldn't match it, but I should be able to make
a really substantial contribution. But you see, my husband has
earned everything that we have. Neither of us had any
inheritance that amounts to a thing. Al has been extremely
successful, but his senior partner, Mr. Lillick, who started
practicing some years before, had been able to become quite
wealthy in his law practice, because there was no income tax
in those days. What a difference!
Morris: Let's go back to your building and grounds committee, for a minute.
Who served with you on it? You mentioned David Packard —
Charles: He remained on the committee. We had about half a dozen members
of the board. Let me think now who they were. I think my friend
Mr. Herman Phleger was on. He was a stormy petrel, so it was hard
to take seriously some of the things he proposed that were
important to be done. He liked to go after the staff, you know.
Why was that oak tree out in a certain place looking so
miserable? Why weren't you taking better care of the oaks? The
staff would all get to exploding because they'd get so upset about
being challenged. They were all doing a heroic job. The work
was just tremendous then.
Wally Sterling is a very fine fund raiser himself, so he
raised a good deal of the money in that campaign. What a
remarkable man! When I became ill last year, he wrote me one
of the sweetest notes I've ever seen, saying that he doubted
that ever in the history of universities, a president of a
university and a trustee worked together in such an amicable
way, when I was doing building and grounds, which was nice.
Morris: Isn't that fine.
Charles: It was sweet of him. We did have an awfully good time working
together. Wally had excellent ideas. He was always worried about
215
Charles: what the vistas were going to be around the universities. If we
put that building there, what's that going to do to the outlook?
It was very sensible and good. There were a lot of amusing
incidents during that time.
On one occasion the staff called me and wanted me to come
right down. They needed to choose the color on a building.
I suppose they were arguing about it. They wanted me to come
down and decide. I said, "Well, I'll get there as fast as I
can." My daughter, Jean, who now has five children, was just
in the hospital having one. I had the other children with me,
trying to take care of them. Finally, I ended up by taking a
couple of them with us, as Al said he'd drive me down. So I
met the people who were waiting for me. There was an old codger
who was evidently the watchman or something, who stopped us as
we got near the building. I said, "I'm Mrs. Charles. I'm a
trustee and I'm supposed to come down here and help them select
the color for this building." He looked at me, and at three
disheveled children in the car with me — "You're a trustee?!" he
asked. I said, "Yes." He couldn't believe it. He shook his
head, but then he let me in. I loved that. [Laughter]
Morris: It sounds as if you might have been the only woman working with
these people on buildings and grounds.
Charles: I think so. Occasionally they put a woman on the committee, but
the women didn't like it very much. I guess it isn't a
naturally feminine interest.
Morris: The other women who came on the committee didn't really like it?
Charles: Yes. Before we leave this subject, I must mention the very high
quality of staff we worked with. They were utterly responsible
about the university and didn't really need all these trustee
committees. On one occasion they told us that they believed
they should bury the telephone wires going to a new building. I
knew the board would take this badly. The expense of undergrounding
the wires seemed unnecessary. But in this case, the staff explained
the wires would have to be carried across Palm Drive. Palm Drive
is the entrance road to the campus. I knew the board would agree to
the undergrounding if the alternative were wires crisscrossing
Palm Drive. And so it was.
Morris: Did the population of students increase tremendously while you
were a trustee?
Charles: In those years, yes. I think so — the sixties. And by that
time, I was speaking up forcefully at the board of trustees
about student affairs. Many students would come to see me.
216
Charles: I would talk to them and listen to what they had to say.
Morris: They would come up here to San Francisco?
Charles: No, they'd make an appointment for the next time I was on the
campus. Sometimes they'd come up here.
Morris : Did you have an office down there at the university?
Charles: No, but I could always get a place where I could see anybody
I wanted to see. I was always meeting with somebody, either
over in the planning department —
We had a very fine planning officer, Harry Sanders, who
retired two or three years ago, he was excellent. When he
retired, I participated in a book of letters to give him. I
said that I really had never seen him unable to answer a
question that the trustees would throw at him. Some of the
trustees loved to ask. If they asked me, I couldn't answer
the details about some structural material and why we were
using that instead of something else. Harry had every bit of
that information -at his fingertips. It made for a much smoother
operation.
Input on Construction
Charles: Really, the people got very cantankerous about the building and
grounds program.
Morris: The trustees did?
Charles: Yes.
Morris: Why was that?
Charles: They just wanted it to look right. They didn't want to see the
money spent wrong. But I think because of my being a woman — we
were still old-fashioned in those days — they wouldn't take me over
the coals. They would the young staff. When I stood up for
them, why then it was very easily handled.
Morris: Had there been some kind of master plan for all this growth?
Charles: We kept adopting master plans.
Morris: Were they helpful, do you think?
217
Charles
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Yes, but of course, it's very foolish to adhere to anything so
rigidly that you can't adapt yourself to what the present needs
are.
Sometimes it's said of college campuses that they just kind of
grow in a hodge-podge way, when they can raise money for buildings.
We wanted to keep our campus in some kind of harmony, even though
we wouldn't be able to have red roofs indefinitely. We would at
least cause the buildings to have a similar feeling. The first
departure from that was Jack Warnecke, who was one of our first
architects.
We needed a new post office and a book store building, right
in the heart of campus. He started very courageously coming in
with completely modern stuff that — some of the things looked like
a ship in full sail. I kept sending things back. I wouldn't
even bring them to the board. Jack's people in the office
were finally able to tone down their desires to make them fit
with some of the ways the campus was built. They did it very
well. They really settled on a nice tone. We built a very
good-looking post office and a very good-looking book store.
He was chosen before he had submitted a design for the building?
We didn't have a competitive kind of design program. We had to
explain that to the board of trustees. You can't get very far
with that, with architects. You really have to learn all you
can about an architect and then try to let him have a hand in
deciding what you're going to want, rather than you dictating
to him. It really worked very well.
What I started to say earlier was that I thought the faculty
should be included in these meetings with the architects, and in
selecting an architect, the faculty of the building that was going
to be built. But the worst problem we ever had was when we built
an engineering building. The faculty of engineering, of course,
felt they knew more about it than the contractors and I was
constantly soothing the architects who were ultimately
responsible. They would come in and say, "I've decided I
don't want that room that long. Just shorten that a little."
It's very costly to the financing Of a building to make what they
call change orders; I don't know how they charge you for them.
But they would come in. Then they would have awful arguments
in the corridors as the building began to go up. The engineers.
They just knew more than anybody else did about that sort of
thing. It was perfectly natural. Everybody enjoyed it.
You think that sometimes people enjoy that kind of a controversy?
218
Charles: Oh, I think so. Certainly.
Morris: It makes them feel a part of what's going on?
Charles: I think so. I never thought there were any threatening aspects
of these little upsets that we'd have occasionally.
Morris: Did some of the faculty or trustees have particular architects
that they favored?
Charles: Yes. We just told them we were very anxious to get the names of
any architects they wanted to recommend. Then we would take the
names and get a whole lot of factual material on them: their
backgrounds, the experience of other places where they'd worked,
as to how they'd found them to get along with, and that sort of
thing.
Morris: Would it be Mr. Sanders who got that kind of information?
Charles: Yes, he and his staff. He had a big staff. Our business manager
was very active in this thing because it was he who got these
contracts signed so they were within estimates, and so forth. We
had an awfully good man, Alf Brandin was a very able and
attractive man.
He's the business manager?
He was the business manager of that part of university work, and,
believe me, that's hard work.
So that the business manager and the planning officer would be
the people you worked with most closely for this committee?
Oh, yes, and the president, as one of his special interests.
When we had these early morning meetings, Alf Brandin and
Harry Sanders and Dr. Sterling would be there. They used to
love to tease me. One day they told me that we were going to
remodel Encina, which was an old dormitory. They wanted me to
see what had to be done. They said, "We can't take you up in the
elevator inside; you've got to climb the iron ladder outside to
get up to the roof." They were always waiting to see what I would
do. Those were the days before slacks were worn. I did what I
always did, did what they asked me to, without endangering life
and limb.
Morris: Did you climb up outside of the building?
Charles: Yes.
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
219
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Good for you!
Certainly. I thought if it was part of my job, I wasn't going
to have a woman disqualified because she was too modest to do it.
Did you ever have a feeling that people were asking you to do
things that they wouldn't ask a man to do, just to see whether or
not you'd do it?
Yes, I think so. We had an awfully nice relationship with these
young men. We had a lovely time working together. I was always
very direct to them and told them anything I knew about what was
wrong with what they were doing, if there was such a thing.
We kept things going along at a nice, smooth pace. We soon got
ourselves out of the doldrums of so much disagreement.
What had happened before was the trustees never had time
to think over what they wanted. They'd see the plans; then be
asked to adopt them immediately. So I made a judgment that my
committee would never do that. There would be one meeting when
plans would be presented to the board, and they would not be
acted on until the next meeting. I tried to resolve the things
that I saw that I thought caused the most difficulty.
»
In something like that, would you talk that over with Dr.
Sterling to say this is what I think is happening and can we
try just presenting the information at one meeting and then
waiting til the next meeting — ?
Oh, yes, I'd tell him. He was the most agreeable with any ideas
I had that I thought would work. I didn't ever feel I had to ask
his permission.
I was thinking of it, I guess, just in the technical sense of
getting it on the agenda and —
Yes, only the agenda's done differently. Wally didn't do the
agenda. A staff member always did the agenda. But it would
come through the planning office for any buildings that were
going to be built and from the business office, when we wanted
to discuss estimates at the meeting. I never set myself up as
a financial authority. I always retreated to one side when they
were going to discuss whether they thought the prices were fair
or not. I knew I didn't know anything about that; I just wasn't
going to put myself in the position of pontificating about something
I didn't know anything about.
It sounds like within the trustees there would be other people,
like Herman Phleger for instance, who were knowledgeable about
220
Morris:
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles;
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
real estate values and functions and that sort of thing.
Of course, lots of them. Then Mr. Coldwell would always be
involved in these things , too , and would help us with his
experience.
He'd sit in on that part of the trustees' meetings?
No, he wouldn't sit in on it. Well, he might be invited to sit
in when we were discussing it. He might just do his discussing
with Dr. Sterling and the business manager and the planning
officer. He was a lovely man, and we tried not to impose on
him.
How did he get involved, do you know?
He was a particular friend of one of the trustees (I've forgotten
who) and had said that he would like very much to be of assistance
if he could. He was of tremendous assistance.
I can believe it.
based, primarily.
I think of his firm as being San Francisco
They are based in San Francisco, but they've always dealt in
real estate all around the Bay Area. They had a lot of valuable
information about land values and all these things.
How much of the process of working through the details and coming
up with a decision could be done in the buildings and grounds
committee itself?
The buildings and grounds committee would make a recommendation
to the full board which then the board — all committee meetings
were open to anybody who wanted to come.
They were held in a sequence. We had one day devoted to the
board of trustees. We began in the morning at eight o'clock.
The committees would meet and make their recommendations. If it
was a committee in which a lot of people were interested, a lot
of the trustees would come.
Did you find that a lot of them did come to your committee
meetings?
Oh yes; of course, they were very much interested in it. Then we
would get a vote of the committee to recommend that this plan be
followed or whatever we were looking at. Then, when it came to
the board, full board, I would be called on to report for the
committee, which I would then do, saying that it was being
221
Charles: recommended by the committee that we do thus and so. Then the
board could make its dissent if they had any. We got along
really quite smoothly. I can't remember any very serious
problems.
Morris: Did you find that on some things, the full board would go back
over territory that you'd already spent a lot of time on?
Charles: Oh, of course! It was important to be able to answer all their
questions. It was always my feeling that I must come there
prepared, so that I would always go to whatever site we were
considering, so that I could explain to the board why it seemed
like the right site and what I thought it was going to look like,
because they need both a lay opinion and a professional
opinion on that.
Morris: Did your committee disagree at all? Frequently? With the staff?
Charles: Occasionally. It was not a thing that couldn't be taken care of
if they didn't agree with Alf Brandin's estimate of who ought
to get the contract. But they knew that we had a long process
for awarding a contract for these several millions of dollars
of buildings that we were doing. Unless the board members could
offer some very good reason why it should be somebody else, then
we would continue with the recommendation of staff. The staff
wasn't likely to be in somebody's pocket for that sort of thing.
Morris: Was there, then, a kind of rotation? The different construction
would go to different architects and different contractors.
Charles: Yes, indeed, that's what we tried to do. We tried to use many
different architects. We realized that with all the money we
were raising in PACE, we'd be spending millions of dollars on
building, and we didn't feel that we ought to confine that to
a single architect. We had very good luck with that method.
Sometimes we would go back to the architect who had built some
building originally, if we were going to make an addition in
order to get the same feeling.
Nominating Committee
[ Interview 10: 24 January 1978] ////
Morris: I thought we might go on with the trustees' nominating committee
and how you happened to be appointed to the nominating committee.
222
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles i
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
It's an appointive situation where the president of the board —
this was all in the days before women's lib, so there wasn't any
particular pressure on him to put a woman on. After all, I was
a duly elected trustee. I think he just suggested that I, or
recommended that I be on — or appointed me, I should say. I
shouldn't say recommended because that was his job. That was
the most important committee on the board.
That's my impression.
In order to get the right people onto the board of trustees.
Something that worries them all to death.
Was that still Lloyd Dinkelspiel?
Yes, Lloyd was still the president of the trustees.
Who else served with you when you went on the nominating
committee?
Oh, my goodness sakes! I think Judge Homer Spence had been the
long-time chairman of the nominating committee. There were no
rules for retirement or rules for the cessation of anybody's
service — you didn't serve a term on any of these committees
on the board; you" just served at the pleasure of the president.
Did you have any particular ideas yourself as to what kinds of
people you would like to see serve on the board?
Yes, I was very concerned about women, that the board not always
be thinking about how much money people could contribute or
bring in, which is a popular conception, because I knew that
they wouldn't get the best women that way. Women don't, as a
rule, have control of that much money. Oh, there are some, of
course. I don't mean there aren't women who do, but by and
large, they don't. It would be better to take them for their
character or their accomplishments as persons. That was much
harder to make the board believe.
How did you do in convincing them that there should be more
women ?
Not very well. They didn't want more women. Homer Spence said
to me, "Now, Caroline, don't you ever let this board off from
having two women on." They had three, because Mae Goodan had been
appointed earlier, several years before. Then I was elected in the
big election that changed the number of the board of trustees.
We had an alumni election. We were just beginning to experiment
with an alumni-appointed group of trustees. One of those was a
woman.
223
Morris: Do you remember her name?
Charles: Ruth Lipman, Mrs. E. C. Lipman from Berkeley.
Morris: Was she a younger woman?
Charles: No, she was older than 1, by quite a bit.
Morris: Did the nominating committee meet all year long?
Charles: Oh, my, yes I You never knew when people were going to resign or
leave the board for some reason or other. You had to be able to
act on it very quickly.
It was very hard to keep that number of women up, because
the men on the board had the conviction that only men in the
Los Angeles, for instance, area, could help them; not women.
And yet , Mae Goodan had been a tremendous help to them.
Morris: You said it was hard to keep the number up. Was there a fairly
regular resignation, retirement rate?
Charles: It was by their own choice. We didn't have a terminal point. Now
it's very clear. I was on that board for twenty years. I must
have been the last of the long-term appointees. Your term was
usually ten years. At the end of the term, you were probably
re-elected. It was quite surprising if you weren't. I think you
had to do something terrible to be dropped.
Morris: So that one of the criteria for nominating people would be
somebody that you could live with for a long period of time?
Charles: Oh, yes. We had people that we knew and they were very anxious
to get people who could help the university. It was about the
beginning of the time that the PACE program began; so then it
was important.
Morris: I gather that Morris Doyle and Richard Guggenhime came on the
board after you did?
Charles: Yes.
Morris: Would you have been on the nominating committee that selected
them?
Charles: Probably. I would have been enthusiastic about both of them,
of course. I've known them well for so many years.
Morris:
Had Mr. Guggenhime been a student at Stanford while you were?
224
Charles: Yes, he's a little bit younger, about two years younger than I.
I think he was the class of '29, as was Morrie Doyle. I was the
class of '27, you see.
Morris: Is Mr. Guggenhime still on the board?
Charles: Yes, he is. They did continue, yes.
Morris: Any others in particular that you,. can think of that were selected
by the nominating committee when you were on it?
Charles: No. I'm sorry, I just don't remember.
Morris: Mr. Guggenhime you'd known at the Rosenberg Foundation.
Charles: Not only there, but we had worked together for years. Dick
always had a favorite story about me. He loved to tell people
about how, when he was president of the Community Chest and I
was on the executive committee, he said once he came in to tell
the executive committee about a problem he had. Then he said, I
said to him, "Now, Dick, kindly don't tell us how to solve it.
We should be allowed to do that ourselves and make some
suggestions before you come in with your solutions."
He always came that way; he always brought in a problem
and gave his solution immediately. I thought that wasn't a good
way to work with people. Dick had never had a woman tell him
what to do, or anybody else, I guess. He's such a lovely
fellow. He was very amused by it. He just loved to tell about
me, how I didn't mind taking him down a peg.
Morris: When you and he were working together on things, did he change
his ways?
Charles: I think he did, if I remember correctly. I can't remember what
happened after that in the Community Chest, but I remember he
and I have always gotten along well. I've never felt called
upon to reprimand him for what he was doing, I don't believe.
Morris: The Community Chest and Stanford trustee positions take quite a
lot of time. How did Mr. Guggenhime manage to — ?
Charles: He was in Lloyd's office, which was unusual, to elect and have
two people on the board from the same law firm or whatever it
might be. In any case, he was elected to the board. Lloyd was
very ill at that time with a terminal illness. We wanted him
to know that we were going to continue representation of someone
he was very eager to have elected to the board.
Morris: Mr. Guggenhime would be kind of Mr. Dinkelspiel's protege?
225
Charles: I think that in the office he may well have been. He is now the
senior partner in that law office, where Lloyd was a senior
partner for years.
But you know, I have never hesitated to try to make people
try to understand my position on something. I was thinking back
to my days at home. I was beginning to learn something about
wisdom, I guess. You only learn from what you see people do,
or hear something solved that way. My father was the dearest
man, he was a very small, short man, with a marvelous sense of
humor. We children adored him. If he saw me worrying about
something, he'd say, "What's the matter, Caroline, they got the
Indian sign on you?" I loved that expression because it conveyed
so much, that general feeling that you need not be defeated by
things. He felt that when it was an anomalous thing, that you
should rise above, move ahead, and ignore it. But at least he
knew it existed, which was what made him such a comforting parent.
He recognized those unspoken things .
Advocate for Students
Morris: Were there many times on the Stanford board when you felt that you
might be in a situation — ?
Charles: Oh, my, yes. With the students, I really fought a battle, a
constant ongoing battle about them. I was very concerned that the
board take time to listen to them and try to understand something
of what was causing all these upheavals.
We were lucky at Stanford, we always said, because we had
read all these things happening at UC, and our students were still
calm. But we knew it would eventually come over here because
this is the way these student movements are. They go all over the
country. Then the board was amazed at some of the university rules
and regulations that we heard about — I think most of us hadn't
even thought about existing. They existed but — for instance, it was
always considered a cause for reproach for the students to have a public
opinion on anything that the university itself had an opinion on
contrary to them. Yet I think when we examined that sort of
provision in the light of the new kinds of students and the things
we knew about our own children, we knew it wouldn't work. It
would only cause more upheavals and rebellion.
Morris: What do you recall as the beginnings of the students really
speaking out at Stanford?
Charles: Let me see what the first thing was that happened. I Just don't
remember, but we had some dramatic moments when they staged a
226
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
refusal to let anybody go in and out of certain buildings where
they thought things were going on that they didn't approve of,
such as research on the war effort, or anything of that sort.
They objected to the Stanford Research Institute?
Yes, somewhat, but that isn't where that would be going on. They
were talking about the university itself. There was a great deal
of research for the government going on in scientific departments.
They would picket outside of the buildings.
They would picket those buildings, which was new to us, the
picketing, I mean. It hadn't been done before. They would
refuse to let people in and out of those buildings. Then we had
a young professor who was encouraging them.
That was Franklin?
Franklin, whose appointment we discontinued finally, with the
support of the faculty too, which was essential, of course,
because you can't just tell a professor to leave or refuse to
renew his contract nowadays without having consulted the body
of your professors. Dear old Mrs. Stanford fired a professor
when he — let me think what his error was — he was out making
critical speeches to other communities that Mrs. Stanford
thought were a disgrace. But of course, that was probably
nothing that we would think of or even look twice at today.
I can imagine,
teach?
What was Professor Franklin's field? What did he
I think he was in the English department; I know he was. But he
did actually lead these insurrections. You'd see him over on the
steps of the buildings and he said to the students, "Now, keep
them out." And just encouraging them, which was unheard-of for
a professor to do, but he thought it was his right to do that.
He is now working for another university in the East; I've
forgotten which one it is.
Was it tenure that was denied to him?
No, he was denied a renewal of his contract. Yes, of course, he
was about to get tenure and we couldn't afford to let that
happen, we felt.
He hadn't been at Stanford very long, is that right?
No, not very long. I've forgotten how many years you have to be
there in order to have tenure.
227
Morris: How did the student government function in these student upheavals?
Charles: The student government was part of them, of course, and they
were carrying them on. We had some very eloquent students who
were presidents of the student body at that time.
Morris: I think of David Harris. Did you have any contact with him?
Charles: Yes, but not very much. He wasn't one of the most effective.
He was famous because he was married to Joan Baez. He was not
much of a force on the campus, I don't think. One of the first
of the student body presidents — well, you know, the students had
such endearing habits, endearing to me, in those days. They
loved to dress up, and I loved the way they dressed up. For
instance, Denis Hayes, when he was president of the student
body, comes to mind. He'd get himself all dressed in white like
a Southern colonel, in clothes from some secondhand store. They
really were marvelous, the way they did those things. Some of
those uniforms they got into must have come from the junk stores
around there.
Morris: In earlier student generations, people cared considerably about
being up to date in their fashions. What do you suppose brought
on the thrift shop kind of — ?
Charles: It wasn't the thrift shop. They weren't thinking of the thrift
end of it. They were just thinking of looking unusual. That's
really what they wanted to do. They were really seeking ways to
annoy. They realized that all this business of the way they
dressed — that sort of hippie style — was not at all in favor with
the older people. They used to try to do things that — they had
a great intuitive sense of what to do to annoy.
Morris: Your feeling was that it was deliberate?
Charles: I think that a lot of the things they did were just — after all,
we weren't quite smart enough to counter by not paying any
attention to it.
Morris: In hindsight, does it seem that to ignore that kind of behavior
would have made it go away?
Charles: No, I don't think it would make it go away. It would have saved
our nerves somewhat. I think there was no use of letting the
different aspects of it make you get unduly excited.
Morris: Did some of the trustees get unduly excited?
Charles: Oh, very much! They got very much distressed by it. It was
228
Charles: their university and the idea of having these people looking like
tramps wandering all over it, they couldn't quite accept that.
Morris: How did they feel about the substance of the student protest?
For instance, that the university shouldn't engage in war
research.
Charles: We felt, everybody felt, that we were in a war. It was important
that everybody be sensitive to the war effort, which is rather an
old-fashioned point of view, I guess. If you're going to be
responsible for a whole university, you would feel that way. That
was just the beginning of the disillusionment with Vietnam, you
know. It hadn't really come yet.
Morris: In addition to wearing peculiar clothes, was Stanford bothered with
drug use by students?
Charles: That wasn't part of the thing that was troubling us so much. We
were trying to take care of that through our medical departments.
Morris: How about changes in — you mentioned rules and regulations —
changes in the housing rules and things like that as to men and
women in the same dormitories?
Charles: I think that came before. It wasn't related to that at all. We
had already accepted the proposal of our student supervisors, the
dean of men who felt that it was important for us to move to that .
The board was reluctant about it, but did. They were looking to
see what the women on the board would do about that — and I just
have always felt that you just can't buck the times very far.
You've got to go along with it as best you can and make it as
difficult as possible for the students to do themselves any harm.
Morris: Make it difficult for the students to do themselves harm.
Charles: Yes.
Morris: That's a very interesting way to put it.
Charles: We wouldn't want to make concessions that would end up by everybody
being worse off than they were before. So we tried very hard, I
think, to be sensible about what we did.
Morris: In terms of the war protests, was there any sense in which the
students would be doing themselves harm in those kinds of
protests?
Charles: There wasn't violence yet, real violence, I don't believe. No,
we weren't going to support the movement against the war. You
know, everybody is really very conventional when things like that
229
Charles: happen, because they feel their sense of loyalty to their country
very strongly. When you're older, you've given up fighting out
those things; you just accept the stance that the proprieties
demand certain things of you. That is, people like us do. We're
all part of the establishment, so to speak. But you have other
people like Henry Sloane Coffin in the East and other people taking
an active part, but that was not the body of the university
doing it. It was really one person.
Attitudes of Faculty and Alumni
Morris: Aside from Franklin, was there a sense that there were the same
kinds of differences of opinion within the faculty?
Charles: Oh yes, we all realized there were bound to be. Faculty has
always been much more liberal than the board could be or would
be.
Morris: Does that make it difficult for faculty and trustees to function?
Charles: No. We all recognize the reasons for it. There was no feeling
of real anger at each other, I don't believe. There may have been
some, but it wasn't evident. We were all the kind of people who
would get along with each other, regardless.
Morris: That's interesting that in one institution, you have a conservative
group of trustees and then a faculty that is teaching —
Charles: They're always more liberal because they're working in a world of
theory, so to speak, with new ideas coming all the time, which is
not what troubles the board of trustees very much. We always
had one or two trustees who were more liberal than the body of
the board. In fact, I well remember the time we elected a
Democrat to the board. That was quite an astonishing thing to
do on the board. Judge Ben Duniway was the first Democrat
we had ever had on the board, we said. Ben knew that, too.
We used to tease him about it.
Morris: Was the fact that he was a Democrat a thing that the trustees
had to work through?
Charles: The trustees had to think about, yes. Because we just hadn't
had any Democrats on there and they were considered far more
liberal than the Republicans in those days. Things have changed
a lot, 1 think.
230
Morris: I guess what I'm driving at is, if the trustees have the final
responsibility, how is it that they allow universities to continue
to have liberal thinkers on the faculties?
Charles: Oh, of course! I don't think there are any other kind. There are
a few ultra-conservative professors across the country. We have
tried to get some to come to Stanford, but of course, they were
all much in demand for the same reasons all over the country, I
think.
Morris: Because they attracted students?
Charles: No, because they attracted the good will of the trustees and of
the alumni.
Morris: Oh, I see. The alumni are more likely to want new and startling
different things going on?
Charles: No, the alumni want conservatism. The kind of protests we got
from our alumni were on the basis of too much liberality going
on, and that sort of thing, changes since they went to school.
But we had protected the faculty on that score for many, many
years. That's always been necessary, I think. The relationship
of town and gown, so to speak, is kind of a delicate one.
Morris: In town, you include the alumni constituency?
Charles: Yes, indeed, as well as the board of trustees, too. We were
the products of a community having been out of college a long
time.
Morris: If the alumni and trustees tend to conservatism, why are they
willing to protect the liberal element?
Charles: Because I think that any university that has a president, the
president is responsible to the faculty too, you see. The
president of the university, Wally Sterling, was always very
protective of his faculty. We realized it was necessary. I
don't think you have to be very smart to realize that it was
important that we not jeopardize the quality of our education
by simply throwing everybody out and getting nothing but
conservatives on the faculty, which would have been hard to
do.
Morris: I imagine it would in a group of professors. That makes me
think of the University of California in the early fifties,
when they had that long uproar with their faculty about the
loyalty oath.
231
Charles: Right. The faculty took a very courageous stand at UC. Monroe
Deutsch was the provost. He was a very unusual man. He never
veered from his stand of support for the faculty.
Morris: Deutsch came out of retirement to speak for the faculty on the
loyalty oath issue. Robert Sproul was then the president.
Charles: That's right.
Morris: Eventually, they did fire a number of faculty. I wondered if
Stanford, during those same McCarthy years, had any similar
pressures or problems?
Charles: No, I don't think so. I don't remember them, because that was
before I was on the board.
Morris: Did Dr. Sterling retire during the student uprisings?
Charles: Yes, he retired a little later than that. He had been president
for many years. It was twenty years, I think, that he'd served.
I've forgotten now exactly what his tenure was, but he was
exactly my age — Wally and I had been in the same class, he at
the University of Toronto, he and his wife — the class of 1927.
I was that class at Stanford. When I went to a reunion, I
proposed that our class elect Wally and Anne as honorary
members of our class, which they were glad to do. There wasn't
any problem about that.
But Wally was not in very good health at that time; he
needed to restore himself, which was almost impossible to do
while he was in office. The students would come to his house and
generally raise an uproar. It was very hard on the people who were
on the campus. After all, we could go home to wherever our homes
were — the trustees could. Occasionally the students would picket
the board of trustees. I remember Dick Guggenhime worrying
about me getting into the building where we were meeting because
the students were all lined up out there. They'd make catcalls
and all kinds of comments.
Morris: This was when you were meeting in San Francisco?
Charles: No, down there; then they began coming to the building up
here. I think it was about then that we decided to try to
hold more and more meetings on campus. There was no need of
meeting so far away. But it was a good thing for us. We
needed to meet somewhere where we could actually deliberate
things.
232
Student Challenges and Participation
Morris: Did you ever send a few of the trustees to talk with students or
have a few of the students in to talk with them?
Charles: We had the president of the student body come in and talk to us
a couple of times. They'd be young people prepared very carefully
for that.
Morris: Did they?
Charles: I wouldn't say that they were very persuasive because they
really forgot what they were up against. They were so emotional.
You can't do a good job when you're very emotional about things.
You really need to begin to get your intelligence to take over and
try to imagine what the people you're addressing, what concerns
they have. That was hard for the students to do, of course.
Morris: You said that on some topics, you would find a way to meet with
the students.
Charles: I would occasionally — I was always available to the students.
This worried some of the men on the board. But I remembered my
father's remark about the Indian sign, and I decided I wasn't
going to let those men on the board have the Indian sign on me,
as to what _I_ thought I ought to do. I was going to have to do
what I thought I should. At that time, a couple of students
would come up to see me up here or would meet me someplace on
the campus. There was nothing clandestine about it.
Morris: I understand.
Charles: I was not trying to keep it quiet. I had talked to them and knew
what they thought. In fact, it became something the board was
very anxious to know about: what I thought the students' reaction
to things would be. They knew that I was in communication with
them.
Morris: Did you find it easier to talk with and come to some understanding
with a smaller group than in front of a whole mass meeting of
students?
Charles: No, I don't think you ever arrived at an understanding. It was
really more of exposing yourself to being talked at. [Laughter]
Morris:
Yes, that gives a good picture of it.
233
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
Those were not pleasant meetings to go to, when you went to a
meeting of students. I always accepted, when I was asked to do
that. The men on the board did too, but no one was happy about
that, because you didn't know what the students were going to do.
They were going to ask you very unfair questions.
About other aspects of governance of the university?
No, about your own personal life — it was very hard on the men.
Why did the trustees have a partner who thought thus-and-so?
They would have boned up on whatever the business of the
corporation was that the men — or what past positions might
have been. They were completely indiscriminate about what they
would talk to you about and many things were not really suitable.
You were not there to be defamed or —
Personally attacked, yes.
Yes. But they didn't feel any inhibitions about that. None of us
would have done that to them. Some of my friends among the men
on the board were very much amused by the fact that a student
spit at me once. It didn't bother me. The reason it amused
them was that he was a boy whose parents had asked my help to
get him into Stanford, which I always declined to do because I
don't think it's good practice for a trustee to do that sort of
thing.
I always declined whenever I was asked to be of special
help to any family or student getting in. They had to make their
own way into the university. I would always let the university
know I was especially interested in so-and-so, but I wouldn't
go into a recommendation, because I didn't know enough about
the student. It's true that when you're asked to recommend a
student, it was usually by the parents. You didn't really know
anything about the student.
Right. That gets to be kind of difficult.
It's very difficult for everybody. I really had too much respect
for our admissions department to try to interfere with their
operations.
Were most of the student disturbances that came to the trustees
related to questions of the Vietnam War or did you also get
involved in the minority — ?
They picked up any issues they could find,
the war was always the issue at that time.
I, myself, thought
234
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
What about minority and poorer students?
that the trustees took up at all?
Was that a question
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
I didn't think so. I didn't think we were forced to that at all.
I thought that it was more governmental policy that the students
wanted to try to influence by making things difficult for us.
How about Stanford and minority enrollment and looking for poor
but deserving students?
I think they have always tried to do that and have tried to have
plenty of scholarships available. It was much, much later that
that became an issue that they were trying to deal with when, for
instance, graduate schools finally went into an effort to let
perhaps ill-prepared students in if they could be tutored to
make it possible for them to come. That was done in the medical
school, the law school, and — Each graduate school operates its
own admission department.
Business school?
Business — I think so. I would just have to be not too detailed
about that because I don't really remember.
It doesn't sound as if the trustees were very much involved in
that aspect.
We always knew about all those things, but we were not pressing
anything. We could have objected — I think we had some ultra-
conservative people on the board who objected to these kinds of
concessions. They were very consistent, I'll say. Their
prejudices were what you'd expect from ultra-conservative
people and the board was never greatly swayed by them.
Later the trustees did make some changes in terms of deciding
to take a look at the social implications of their investments.
That would be much later. That whole investment movement was —
I've been reading about it. It wasn't an issue with us, I don't
believe. The students hadn't quite gotten into everything we
did. It came as a rude shock to the board to have the students
decide to take a look at our investments. That, we would think,
was certainly uncalled-for on the part of a kid, as we would
think of it.
Then we started trying to put a student on each of our
trustee committees.
Morris :
How did that turn out?
235
Charles :
Morris:
Charles ;
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
It worked very well. They were very good.
Were they able to do the homework and come to the meetings and
keep up with their studies?
Yes. Oh, there wasn't that much to do, you know. After all,
the preparation for trustees is extensive by the staff. It isn't
that we're expected to dig out everything we need to know. We
tell the staff what we need and they produce the material we
want for deliberation. That's the way it worked.
Did the students speak up in these committee meetings?
You
Oh my, yes! But they didn't always want everything they got.
would try to make these concessions to them and then discover
that sometimes they just wouldn't come. They didn't always attend
the meetings, not because they were hard pressed for time to do it,
but because they just lost interest in it.
They finally decided there were only one or two committees
that were powerful enough to be of any interest to them. They
didn't want to get on committees they thought were not right in
the heart of everything. Of course, they wanted to be on the
investment and finance committee.
How about nominating?
And nominating. I think we always tried to have the students
working with us, as we did, faculty. We added both professors
and students to all committees.
Morris:
The faculty had not also been participating in the trustee
committee work?
Charles;
No , no .
Selecting a President
Morris: The other thing that I've been told is most important in
trustees' work is selecting presidents.
Charles: That's very difficult. You'd have to have second sight, which
you don't have, so you have to do the best you can.
Morris: Why does it take second sight?
236
Charles: You want to know how they're going to act under pressure, which
is what we had plenty of in those days, especially when Dr.
Sterling retired. We had a very difficult time finding a person
to come in. We had some acting presidents who did well.
Morris: People didn't want to come into a situation that was unsettled?
Charles: Oh yes, they wanted to come but we didn't want people there whom
we felt couldn't deal with the situation. We selected one
candidate who was in there only a few months — not very long.
He was so anxious to show his liberality that he spent a great
deal of time bending over backwards with the students, which
isn't necessary, you know. With the students, you need to hold
up your end of the discussion and try to make them understand
why your point of view is as it is. You can't just give up
everything and say, "Yes, you're right. I'll do what you want."
They haven't the experience to be able to run the university.
I don't think he was in there more than — I don't know whether
he was in there a year or not. We'd have to look at the
historical facts. But it was a very short time. He was in science
on the campus, and very able.
Morris: Was the decision of the trustees that they wanted somebody
already at Stanford rather than do a national search?
Charles: No, no, not at all. It wasn't. He applied for it and I think
the board agreed. Then when he left, these two young men, Dr.
Lyman and another man from the law school came together. They
were on the faculty and offered their services to assist in any
way they could. Then Dick became an active candidate for the
presidency, and he has been a very successful president. He and
his wife. Jing Lyman is an exceptional young woman. It's very
important to the president of the university to have a wife who
can deal with the problems she has to deal with. Anne Sterling
was an exceptional wife of a president. That's the only reason
why I could see that a woman might not be able to do the job.
She wouldn't have a wife to carry on those responsibilities.
They're enormous for a president's wife. All the receptions
and heaven knows what, dinners and everything else, lunches.
Charles: There was a selection committee —
Morris : They didn1 t function as a committee of the whole?
Charles: Oh well, it did in the sense that everything was brought back
to the full board with the possible candidates, and we knew a
great deal about them. And actually, they were brought in to
visit with the trustees.
237
Morris: So they did do a national search?
Charles: Yes, indeed they did. Before we offered the position to Dick
Lyman, they'd had a very thorough search of the country.
Morris : Do you remember how the discussions went that it was decided
better to stay with somebody who was on the campus?
Charles: No, no. That wasn't the basis of the decision at all. We
wanted to get the best possible president, of course, and we
needed someone who was very good in his own field. Dick is
an historian.
Morris: So was Dr. Sterling.
Charles: And Dr. Sterling was, too. It's a valuable academic specialty
to have in a president. I remember hearing Dick's description
of a student problem, and he didn't put it in such a way that
you would think it was right on top of you. You would think
it was something being evaluated in a historical sense. I was
very admiring of that sense of perspective that he was able to
give to the critical things we were trying to deal with.
Morris: In deciding on a president, are their ideals about the financial
side of a university and sources of financial support an important
consideration?
Charles: Yes. What we need to know is their history in that regard,
whether they've ever participated successfully, and then, of
course, we want to know that they'd be willing to. Wally
Sterling was an exceptionally fine fund raiser because he
inspired so much confidence in the people whom he interviewed,
and well-deserved, too. Dick has done very well in that regard,
too.
Morris: Is it more than the ceremonial kinds of receptions and things
that a president's wife has to be responsible for?
Charles: Well, it's more than that, yes, because there 're things she
does on her own, such as entertaining the women on the faculty.
I remember once coming by the president's house (I had to leave
some material for Dr. Sterling) and I heard piano notes coming
out of the house. So I went very carefully up to the front door
and opened it a little bit, and there was Anne, sitting there
on a stiff chair, you know, listening to a recital of some
faculty wives, which must have been the last thing in the world
she wanted to be doing at the end of a hard day. I think they
had all had dinner at the house. But that's the way the
president's life goes. It has to have lunches and dinners, and
238
Charles:
Morris:
Charles;
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
we try to give them a decent allowance for that from the
university board of trustees, and I'm not sure it's ever been
large enough, but in any case, it's a very important thing for
us to allow for, to see that the poor wife gets enough help in
doing those things.
Is it expected that the presidents' wives will be involved in
community activities that relate to the university?
No. I don't think so. I don't think we would ever demand anything
of the president's wife. We'd like to feel that the president's
wife will be a hospitable person to the students and to the alumni.
The alumni's good will is of great importance, of course, to the
university, and much of that comes from their being treated well
by the president and his wife. Anne was marvelous with that,
and of course Anne and Wally were perfect. And Jing — amusing
nickname [spells it] — is lovely. Everybody loves her. She
has a natural interest in wider activities —
You know, one time there was a protest march of the
students on the campus, and here came Jing along in the march,
waving a little American flag. It really endeared her to the
board, which amused me as I watched. The most conservative
members found Jing's participation something very appealing,
because they knew it was real. She was doing what she believed
in.
This sounds like it might have been — what, one of the sort of
general humanitarian marches?
I don't remember what the exact occasion was, something to do
with the war.
For instance, if she had marched in protest to university
contracts with the government, would they have been very
pleased with that?
Well, I don't think so. And I don't think any president's wife
would want to do anything like that. This was certainly a
protest against the war, but not against the university in
any way.
Maintaining Communication and Varieties of Dissent
Morris:
Maybe we could wind up this section with anything that we
haven't talked about that you felt really good about happening
while you were on the trustees, that you had a part in.
239
Charles: Well, I felt that during the time I was on the board, there was
some change in trustee attitudes toward students. I think they
came to realize that these students were not really monsters, they
were just acting as you might expect young people to act when
faced with dying in a war that nobody really believed in. This
is what they couldn't stand, and that's what I kept trying —
Because they would talk of other reasons for protesting, but
they weren't the reasons. I would try to explain that to the
board. These young people didn't want to die — to go be killed
in Vietnam, and they knew that it was going to be doubted, but
the doubt was going to continue until the war was over.
Morris: That's very acute of you, because I think a lot of people didn't
realize that that was what the basic issue was.
Charles: No, I don't think people knew what the basic issue was. I happen
to feel that's what it was.
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Did any of the students say that to you in some of these smaller
sessions?
No, no. I don't think so. I knew that I had their affection and
support, but I don't know whether they knew why. They thought I
at least listened when they had protests.
That must really have been very exciting.
Oh, it was. I was going to say that when I first — I think I
mentioned this the other day — that when I first came on and I had
to take these positions that were opposed to the rest of the board,
I kept saying to myself, "Now look, you're not here to agree with
everybody. You're here to be honest about what you believe.
That's what they want." And I've always believed that is what is
wanted in boards. They don't expect you to be an expert in how
to run the university. They expect you to be a human being who
has certain attitudes toward things.
You felt that it's important for the trustees to express their
opinions, not just to say "yes" to everything.
Exactly. I thought it was important to — I don't mean it just
as an opinionated thing, something deeper than an opinion,
perhaps — a feeling, sense, of what is going on is very important
to be known by the board. I think women are important. Women
can dissent many times when a man wouldn't dare, you know.
Why is that?
240
Charles: Well, because we don't have to go down to the PU [Pacific
Union] Club tomorrow and meet them all and have them look at
us as if we were out of our minds. Women are not expected to
be quite so conservative, I guess, as a man is. At least,
maybe they are, but whenever I find an ultra-conservative woman,
I don't think she belongs on these committees, or I think you
need people who are thoughtful and have brought real feeling
into their lives and their relationships with other human
beings.
Morris: Do you generally find that men are not that way?
Charles: Well, no, but there are plenty of men who are that way, as a
matter of fact, but I think a great many men have become so
enmeshed in corporate dealings and are so impressed with the
responsibility of being on a university board, and the tremendous
investment you have there in buildings and land and professors
and all that.
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
I have wondered about that, if the fact that a university is,
after all, a large financial activity has any bearing on the
trustees' decisions?
That's right. When you're on a university board, you're listed
in the — I've forgotten the name of the national review of
people on — and responsible for large amounts of money — corporate
boards and that sort of thing. My husband was much entertained
that I was listed in that book.
Is that list made up as a guide to people who are wishing to
influence those decisions?
I don't think so. I think it's made up as a review of people
who are in those positions. I don't think it's especially to
be used for purposes of influence at all.
I was wondering if those who were responsible for selling
stocks and bonds try to influence university trustees to "buy
our bonds."
Charles: Oh, I don't think so. I always was careful to see that I was
not on the finance committee. I've never taken responsibility
for investments in our own household and that sort of thing.
It's not that I'm not a feminist. I'm an old-fashioned one,
all right — I'm told — but I'm happy that my husband is willing
to do that for our family. I think it's hard to argue about
such things. And I don't have any expertise in that field.
Morris: Well, if you could concentrate on the buildings program and the
241
Morris: nominating committee and advocacy for students, that seems like
quite a lot.
Charles: That's right. It's about all you can do, you know. You do what
you can.
[Interview 11: 9 March 1978] ##
Charles: What I wanted to say was that among the young guests we had last
night was a young chap in my husband's law office, a very bearded
young man, and he said, "Oh, Mrs. Charles," he said, "I've been
wanting to meet you, because I was a student at Stanford when
you were on the board of trustees." And he said, "You know, the
students were convinced that you were the only one who ever
listened to them on the board or gave them any consideration,"
and I said, "Well, I don't believe I was." And I said, "That's
very nice."
He said, "Well, you remember that big meeting we had," and
all of a sudden I thought that would be an interesting anecdote.
The students invited the board of trustees to a meeting in some
big auditorium on campus — I've forgotten which one — and I had a
strong impression that the men wouldn't go if I didn't come
with them. The students were mad at everybody — but evidently it
was known around the campus that they weren't including me in
their anger.
I sort of hemmed and hawed about it, and so my friends on
the board said, "Yes, you come now," and so I said all right.
So we marched in and had a — I just wanted to hear what they
would say for themselves, and the others did too. The men on
the board were terribly good, you know, about these things.
But my conviction was that I didn't want to behave like another
man, I wanted to behave like a woman whose background was in some
domestic situations where the important consideration was how
the other fellow was feeling, and what you could do about that.
Morris: I see.
Charles: Not just a businesslike effort to make some changes or something.
So we had a comparatively amicable meeting.
Morris: Good. So generally, you found that businessmen —
242
Charles: I found that businessmen would pay attention to me and were
very nice to me about these things and modified their attitudes
to some extent. They thought I was a little bit indulgent — the
way they would feel about their wives, I imagine, but —
Morris: But having indulged you, they found that you had a point?
Charles: Yes, it seemed to work pretty well.
Morris: What was the name of the young man who was the guest at your
house last night?
Charles: Oh, his name is David Roberts.
Morris: And he is still advocating change?
Charles: Oh, I think so. They didn't talk about it last night, but he's
worked hard in the office. My husband thinks highly of him as
a young lawyer. So he's not rebelling in the law office,
anyway. They all got over those things after the war. It
was always the war that was causing that, you know.
Morris: I know a number of people feel that, that the war was really
upsetting —
Charles: Oh, it was. They didn't want to die, you know. When you think
of that, who wants to go over there and be killed? For a cause
that nobody understands, or if they do understand it, don't
really think we want to see our young people dying. So anyway,
I thought it was kind of startling, my past rising up and facing
me.
Morris: Yes, it is, and I should think it would be satisfying to find
out what happened to some of the students that you knew at
Stanford.
Charles: Indeed, yes. I didn't know them well, you know, but I would
come occasionally, when invited. I'd go to the different
students' houses and answer questions that they had, too.
We got on well.
Morris: Did you start a pattern? Are there other trustees now who
continue to do that kind of informal meeting with students.
Charles: Well, yes, and others did them. They do continue doing that,
but at first there was some opposition on the board. The older
more conservative members said to me, "We don't think you ought
to be going down there and seeing the students." And I said,
"Well, why not?" Well, because it was not dignified on the
243
Charles: part of the board. And I said, "That time has passed." After
all, we are not statues that want to be up on a pedestal because
we attained the great honor of being on a university board.
Morris: Was this considered a revolutionary attitude on your part?
Charles: Not conformist, certainly. They were all nice to me, you know.
Morris: The students?
Charles: No, the trustees. In spite of my frequent disagreements with
them. But I have always felt that if a woman would keep herself
looking nice and would always pay attention to her appearance — I
used to wear hats that amused them — and was good humored even
in disagreement, that you could be yourself and they would
welcome it. Ugly women don't get anywhere, and almost any
woman can look nice nowadays. There are lots of aids to
appearance that we can use if we don't overdo them.
Morris: I think that's a good point. If you have no additional points
on Stanford —
Charles: No, that's all I was thinking of.
244
14. PUBLIC BROADCASTING, LOCAL AND NATIONAL
Early Years of KQED, Impact of Newsroom
Morris: I thought it was time we got around to KQED and public
broadcasting.
Charles: Oh, yes.
Morris: I'd like to go back to when you were first on the KQED board.
Charles: Well, I must have been on about five or six years, when I was
elected chairman of the board, but I had always wanted to get
into educational television because I believed it was the only
television that was trying to make the best use of itself.
Morris: Had you particularly kept an eye on it? I know the Rosenberg
Foundation had made grants when the station was first getting
started.
Charles: That's true, but I wasn't on the Foundation then. When I was
on the Rosenberg board, I never participated in discussions
that had to do with any organization that I was involved with.
So fortunately, it was earlier than that that KQED had come to
Rosenberg for assistance.
Morris: That would have been in the late '50s, as I recall.
Charles: Yes, I think so.
Morris: Your vita says that you became chairman in 1973.
Charles: Right.
Morris: So you would have gone on the KQED board in the late '60s.
Charles: I think so. But I'm bad about dates, and I guess you find most
245
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles;
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
of the people you interview are.
It's hard to really pinpoint a date that far back.
As far as I'm concerned, I did everything about five years ago,
no matter when it was, you know. But KQED was a very difficult
thing for the chairman of the board, particularly, because the
staff was always — in fact, as soon as we had the Newsroom
program — I don't suppose there's a journalist in the world
who doesn't think he's better qualified to run any organization
than the people who are running it are, and the Newsroom people
were convinced they could run KQED much better than the board of
directors, and we had constant difficulty with them. Later on
they inspired the last rebellion by getting some members to
spearhead it.
They didn't want to take any cuts in budget at all. They
thought they were the most important thing on the whole screen,
you see. And we would have to argue about other things we had
that people enjoyed watching.
In other words, there was a question of actual salary cuts.
Well, there was a question of — no, not so much — , Yes, there was
later on, I think, a question of salary cuts. I'll tell you,
getting a budget that'll work — I think in any of the arts, if
you call television an art — is just very difficult. It seems
to go down the drain. You just have an awful time finding out
where it went.
Could you get a handle on that, why that would be so?
Yes, because I think many of them overpriced their services, in
their own minds, to a great extent.
Let's see. I did have a nice letter from Jim Day.* Was he still
at the station when you came on the board?
Let me see. No, he wasn't. But Jim and I have remained great
friends all these years. He left for that marvelous — it was a
marvelous offer he had in New York, which you know didn't pan
out, and left Jim kind of high and dry back there.
In Mrs. Charles's papers.
246
Charles;
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
But I don't think anybody but Jim could 've dragged KQED up to
adulthood, you might say. He and Jon Rice, whose name should
always be mentioned with Jim's in speaking of how KQED got
started, had been working together for years. Jon did the
programming part, and Jim was the administrative director
always, and Jim was very exacting of what the standards should
be. He paid close attention to every aspect of it.
Is Mr. Rice still there?
Yes, he is.
Had he been with KQED from the earliest days in the late '50s?
From the start, yes. You might talk to him. I think you'd
find it interesting. He is a very sound program man. You know,
you almost have to have second sight to know what it is that
people want to see.
Yes, I think that's true in television and radio and theater.
In all those places. Jon seemed to have that, to know when we
ought to continue a program and when we should or should not
discontinue it. He really was quite — I think and has been
always over the years — remarkable about that. He's a very fine
man. Both he and Jim knew Mrs. McLaughlin somehow. I don't
know how she got acquainted with them. But you know, she knew
the people who were stirring around San Francisco and
accomplishing things, and she knew those two men quite well.
I was wondering if you have any thoughts on how KQED evolved
from the purely educational into a more broad community kind of
thing.
Yes. I think it was a national trend for public television to
do that. And then they took advantage of opportunities, you
see. The Newsroom was started on account of the newspaper
strike.*
Right.
This program was a nightly report, using a newspaper city room
set, with working reporters presenting their day's findings and
discussing them with each other. Begun in 1968, it continued
on the air until 1977, although with several format changes.
247
Charles: There wasn't any news, and it was a marvelous thing, the
spontaneity of it, when it first started as a delight to
people. They simply adored it. But you see, it's very hard
to continue that sort of thing when it isn't being done as a
real necessity. That is, to continue the feeling of spontaneous
response to a public need. We were now in competition with the
other newscasters, but ours was still more interesting because
it was so much more human. And I don't mean to disparage what
they did, but I should say that they were stormy petrels in
the operation of the station — they were not careful about
inferences.
Morris: Were the people who started Newsroom mostly from the Chronicle,
which was on strike?
Charles: They came from many newspapers, but many of them went back to
work the minute the strike was settled and didn't stay with
television. Of course, though, they had established wages which
were — this was a high-costing operation for us to put on
ourselves. We weren't really financed to pay the kind of
salaries that they'd been used to getting.
Morris: It would also be more people on a given hour's time than you
had in most of the programming at that time.
Charles: Right. Of course.
Morris: Do you recall, was it the people at the station, the staff, who
said, "We can move in and do something about — ?
Charles: They never said that. It was just the way they acted, you see.
They were always trying to get people to come in and start
trouble because the board wasn't doing what they wanted, and if
anybody expressed a particular affection for Newsroom, then
they would like to see this person start a movement to force
the board of directors to finance Newsroom to the hilt, to
whatever it needed, and cut out anything else we had to cut
out.
Morris: I was thinking about the start of Newsroom itself. Did the
station make a decision that they could fill the news lack in
San Francisco because of the strike?
Charles: Yes, I think so. Jon Rice can tell you about that. Because it
must have been his decision. Of course, the board — we tried
very hard never to get into actual programming. We felt that
that's the manager's job, to decide what programs the finances
we have are able to support. But if every program threatens
to go on strike for him, why then he'll come in and say that
248
Charles: Newsroom won't continue unless they are paid so much and so much,
and that's going to do thus and so to the budget. That's when the
board would get the feeling that we had a stormy petrel on our
hands. Many, many people enjoyed Newsroom and were very unhappy
when it finally —
Morris: By the time it closed down last year, it had changed considerably
from its original format.
Charles: Oh, indeed it had, yes.
Morris: In a way, the other stations have gone into a similar format
with their news programs.
Charles: Yes. But they haven't been able to do the same things.
Morris: The actual investigative reporting on the air.
Charles: Yes. Or they haven't felt as comfortable about doing it.
Morris: When you went on the board in '68, Mortimer Fleishhacker was
chairman, wasn't he?
Charles: Yes. He'd been chairman for a very long time.
Morris: From the beginning, I discovered.
Charles: Yes.
Morris: That's unusual, isn't it?
Charles: Very unusual. It doesn't make for good feeling in the board,
you know.
Morris: I wondered about that.
Charles: Presidents have to make a real effort to get out after four
years, or whatever they set in their own minds as a proper
length of time.
Morris: Was there any special reason that he was president for, what,
fifteen years or so?
Charles: Well, Fuller Brawner was his close associate in that, and they
would — sometimes Fuller would be president and sometimes Morti
would. They would change office, which would give in effect a
discontinuity, but actually it was the same thing.
249
President, 1972-1974; Management Difficulties and Broader
Representation on the Board
Charles: So by the time I was ready to be president, there was considerable
feeling in the board that they must have a change. And part of
it was that we were not satisfied with our then executive.
Morris: That would be Dick Moore at that time?
Charles: Dick Moore. Because Dick was not a manager, he's a creative
artist, and he shouldn't have accepted the job. Jim Day had
thought he would be the best person to succeed him. So we had
followed Jim's wishes. But you can't do that. You've got to
have somebody who understands management and something about
making your wishes felt in management, which was very hard for
Dick to do.
Morris: To express his ideas to the board, or to express his ideas and
supervise the staff?
Charles: Well, that was what he couldn't do. No, the board began to
realize very quickly that he was not able to carry out the
functions that you would expect from a manager. So anyway, I
felt very strongly about that, because I had seen too many
television stations destroyed by not having a manager who
could manage — knew how to manage money and programs, for
instance. When we got our new manager in, he said there 'd
been a lot of slippage [laughs], which is what they call, in
kind terms, money seeping out in ways that you didn't expect
it to.
Morris : Did you have the feeling when you accepted the chairmanship
that this was one of the things the board wanted to — ?
Charles: Indeed I did. And it was certainly one of the things they
knew I was going to do if I were chairman.
Morris: And Mr. Fleishhacker didn't feel the same?
Charles: He didn't want to do it, no.
Morris: In general, with non-profit organizations, the business of
selecting —
Charles: Making that kind of change is very difficult. Yes, very.
Morris: How does the board bring itself to the point where it agrees that
the present manager is not the person — ?
250
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles;
Well, unfortunately, it does have to have a couple of meetings
when the manager is not present. That is hard to do. You have
to do that at someone's home, or some other way. It's really —
unless you have the kind of a manager who — or the kind of
person who realizes that and would absent himself anyway. So
we, I believe, had some of those meetings, and —
Was it a unanimous thing on the board?
You have to have a general feeling that it had to be done.
People don't like to — Dick has a very appealing personality,
which he used to a great degree in trying to save his job. When
I went in to see him, I really was terribly harsh. I said,
"Now look — " and Dick said, "I'm no manager. I don't pretend
to be."
"Well then," I said. "You must not hold onto a job you
can't do."
He said, "You're saying that to me?"
And I said, "I am saying that to you. I would say that to
anybody who was trying obviously to do something that was outside
his skills."
But anyway, those were very hard days. Because, you know,
our meetings began to be invaded by a group led by a man and a
woman who would just break into the meeting and come in.
Was this the beginning of the "community access" kind of thing?
No, it really wasn't. I began to try to find out what they
were trying to do, and what I finally found out was that they
just wanted to govern the station and keep Newsroom at its
original level of financing. That's the trouble, you know,
when you have that kind of rebellion.
Were they members of KQED?
They were members, but they just wanted a new board that they
would lead. Those are dangerous — in my view — very dangerous
people because you shouldn't yield your loyalty — whatever you
think your organization represents — to a group who were obviously
seeking it for their own reasons. They talked a lot about
community access. But that's something we were working on all
the time.
Morris:
What did it seem that this man and woman wanted to do?
251
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles;
They wanted to come in and be the head of it, to run it. I
mean, they wanted to run KQED, that's what they wanted.
They wanted to be on the board.
They wanted to be more than the board.
They wanted to be the station managers.
Yes.
I see. That's odd.
I must say that I've been through a lot of things in my
community work, but I was really sort of stymied by that; my
father would have said, "They had the Indian sign on me." I
didn't exactly know how I could cope with it.
What did they seem to want to do with the station?
You don't know what they wanted to do. Now, actually, the
woman in this case resigned from the board after she got on
for a year. We were just opening up the board to community
elections. And she was elected, and so was one of the men
who was leading it. She got off the board a year later, and
said, "It's impossible to do anything with KQED," which was
really in a way kind of laughable, because that's what she
wanted to do, to help run KQED.
But you see, it is very hard to run a station, where it's
such an amalgam of people, feelings, and points of view. Because
the staff has never been treated just as a group that works for
them separated from management. They were people whose
opinions we were interested in.
Kind of what they call a collective now.
the—?
That they were part of
Well, they weren't a voting part of anything, but you always knew
what they wanted too. But you weren't always going to do it,
particularly. For instance, if one program group, like Newsroom,
wanted to be sure they got the lion's share of all the money,
you would —
They were lobbying for their own program, in other words.
Yes. And you couldn't have that because if every program started
to do that, you'd just have a terrible mess.
252
Morris: In those days, did the program people come and sit in on the
board meetings and do their own presentation?
Charles: No. No. That was done by the manager, sort of like a provost
in a university setting. He was the one who represented the
points of view of the staff, and so forth.
Morris: But it sounds as if you did have a fair amount of involvement
between the various board members and some of the staff.
Charles: Well, we certainly did, but our newcomers took the position that
only they knew what the staff wanted, only they knew what
Newsroom wanted. They were obviously agents for Newsroom.
Morris: How had you decided to — you said you'd "opened up the board
process to community —
Charles: We had been working for about a year on a method by which we
could have elections, which is not easy to do. Because you have
to have a way of counting that is beyond reproach. The first
thing people did was to accuse us of not counting the votes
fairly. So after this great rebellion and everything, I insisted
that any system of counting would have to be supervised by someone
who was believed to be completely impersonal about the whole
thing.
Morris: By "open elections," that meant that anybody who had paid their
dues and become a member of KQED — ?
Charles: No, we had a system of nominating, and the board would nominate
a certain number of people the way they always had, through the
nominating committee, and then they had what they called the
petition system, which I think is what's working now.
Morris: How many people are we talking about, in terms of members who
might want to run?
Charles: Oh, I think you're talking about maybe twenty-five or thirty
people. I would say just a handful of leaders, as always in
these things.
Morris: Out of what, twenty thousand members?
Charles: Yes, right. It really wasn't what you'd call a fair shake, but
that's not what rebellions are. They seldom are representative
numbers, but what would be really needed to —
Morris: Are they people who are already fairly much involved in the
organization?
253
Charles: No. Usually people who know very little about how it's really
run. They get hold of a slogan like "opening it up to the
community," and that sort of thing, which sounds good.
Membership, Fundraising, Programming
Morris: Are there, in addition to the board, active committees of
volunteers who work on things for —
Charles: Well, there are, but those are — we couldn't live without our
auction every year, and the membership, which is one of my pet
theories — One of my worst arguments with Dick Moore was when
he came into the board one day, and he said, "Well, we can never
raise enough money in the community to run this station."
I said, "Dick, we haven't even tried." And I told him how
I felt it had to be done. So it's one of those things you have to
work on every day. You can't just have a membership drive. You
have to keep after people to make them realize that the only way
KQED can operate is by voluntary gifts through membership.
Morris: The auction, that's been around a long time, hasn't it?
Charles: Yes, it was already underway before I came on the board.
Morris: Did Mr. Moore think the auction was not a good idea?
Charles : No , he thought it was all right , but he really was so
inexperienced in the problem of financing things. After all
this was over, I read where he was writing an article on how to
finance a station and using the ideas I had presented to him
that day that he came by and said — he really got jumped on.
That was the first argument — that was the most serious argument
we had, was over that. I told him, "It has to be done in a
wholehearted way, this membership business. It's one of our
most important operations.
Morris: There are those out there in audience land who sometimes
express the opinion that the membership pledge night —
Charles: Is overdone, yes.
Morris: — takes as much time as soap commercials and whatnot.
Charles: Well, I'll tell you, I don't know what to say about that.
We have to make that delicate — that's why being chairman of
254
Charles: that board is very hard. Because you have to make that
delicate decision between how often can you remind people
to be effective and what's too much. Everyone has a different
idea, you know. You could have twenty thousand ideas and you
have twenty thousand members. I don't know how many members we
have right now, but they've kept at it very well.
Morris: In addition to the idea that membership is something you have to
work on all year 'round, what other key ideas did you have, in
terms of funding the station?
Charles: Well, I was hoping that somehow we would — not merely in terms of
fund raising, but I was hoping in terms of programming — that we
would get back to some of the things that'd been the most
important we had done years ago, which was being able to show
local news in action, where we would be the only station that
would show a big argument on the board of supervisors, or something
of that sort. But that's a very expensive thing for us to do,
and we just have to get the money for it somehow.
The first operations of Newsroom finally were picked up by
Ford Foundation, and the trouble was that, as is so frequently
the case when a foundation finances something, they do it at a
higher rate than we could carry on when it's over.
Morris: Was that part of a fairly massive amount of money that Ford was
putting into educational television?
Charles: Yes, it was.
Morris: Did you have to go to Ford and apply for it, or did they just
appear and say, "We're going to fund — "
Charles: Well, I don't really know. Let me think. I'm not sure that I
remember. But actually, their grant to Newsroom came before
their big —
Morris: Their big program for educational TV grants nationally.
Charles: You know, at one point, they went in to stimulate the growth of
the station by a competitive sort of thing.
Morris: Matching grants kind of thing?
Charles: Yes, and it worked very well.
Morris: I wonder if they would have talked at all with people at KQED,
if they'd funded them earlier in developing their grant program.
255
Charles: No, not earlier, I don't believe. No, we didn't ever talk over
how to do it with them that I know of. The staff might have.
When Ford gave Stanford their matching grant some years ago, they
talked to every board member individually, which was really — I
think — a very sound way to do it, to see if the board believed
it could be done.
Morris :
Charles :
Did they?
Foundation representatives came to my house, they came to every
trustees' office or home, and said, "Now what do you really think
about Stanford? Do you think Stanford has the potential to do
this?"
Well, we were an optimistic bunch, and we had good
leadership, as we have had over the years. Wally Sterling was
an exceptional fund raiser, among his many other qualities. And
I think the board was unanimous in its feeling that we could
undertake this — let me see, what were we going to raise? — several
million dollars.
Morris : Was the sense that Ford was trying to find out if the board
members had the interest to actually work on this?
Charles: Well, no. I don't think they meant it that way. It was just to
see if we had the real welfare of Stanford at heart, if we would
support the effort, you know.
Morris: Was it similar at KQED?
Charles: No, they didn't do that. That's what I say — I think it might have
been a good thing if they had done it that way.
Morris: You've mentioned that organizations work better if the members
occasionally have some tea and cookies together, some chance to
get acquainted as individuals.
Charles: Indeed they do. It's one of my favorite precepts in starting an
organization or an auxiliary. I've got a young man coming in
pretty soon who wants me to tell him how to do it, and I'm also
working with the women who are now running the school volunteers,
about that sort of thing. I mean, just operating an auxiliary.
That's what I really enjoy doing the most now, in these years, is
giving people what help I can out of my background experiences.
Morris: Yes, that must be very satisfying to you.
Charles: Absolutely. Very enjoyable for me, and it's especially delightful
when they go out and do exactly what you told them to do, and you
256
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles ;
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
can just see the thing blooming, you know. But a lot of people
don't do what you tell them to do. They go out and then they
muddle around for a while, and then they come and ask me if I
won't please do it for them. Well, I won't, because I've only
got so many organizations I can do in my lifetime.
KQED would be a different kind of situation, wouldn't it?
was not an auxiliary, per se.
There
Oh, well, yes, you could have and did have — I don't know whether
they've got a Friends of KQED now or not. There was some effort
in the national scene to get all the stations to start a Friends
of the Station organization.
In addition to just the membership?
The membership, yes. And in addition to whatever their fund
raising activities were, like the auction and so forth.
Would the auction take the place of a Friends of —
No. Because there's no socializing connected with it. Well,
there's a little bit, but not the way it has to be to make a
strong organization. The auction has a great deal of leadership
that comes from the person hired by the station to run it. They
have a staff person just for that purpose, who works all year
'round, because of course, she has to accumulate the donations
that are being auctioned and then get the personnel. And people
just — the difference you have is that people are longing to work
in television, you know. It's such a mysterious kind of thing.
And glamorous.
Exactly.
And does that carry-over to the auction itself?
Oh, I believe so, yes. Although interestingly enough, you never
get members from the people who buy things in the auction.
Afterwards, you try to find out if they're interested in
joining — no, they're not.
Sure, put them on the mailing list.
Yes.
And they don't join.
They don't want to, no.
257
Morris: How about the people who work on the auction?
Charles: Oh, well, they are members as a rule, just as a matter of course.
I don't think we've absolutely insisted on that. We may now, you
see. I've been out for two or three years. Things change.
Morris: Well, we're interested in how things were. Does the group that
works on the auction ever develop any leadership that then comes
on the board?
Charles: Oh, indeed yes. We watch that very closely, and we frequently
bring onto the board people who've been the lay chairmen of the
auction or worked very hard in that whole process. But it's
really remarkable what they do. I really stand in awe of those
women who run that thing.
Morris: It's an incredible task.
Charles: Oh, enormous. Will you excuse me a minute?
Morris: Yes. [Tape off briefly] I was admiring your garden.
Charles: Tommy Church designed it for us. I got to know him when I was
on the Stanford building and grounds committee. He designed all
the Stanford plantings. He's really been marvelous for us.
Morris: What a couple of people have said about KQED is that the late
'60s, when you went on the board, was the end of the "hero" phase,
that it had been new and untried, and that for educational
television in general, the late '60s and early '70s were —
Charles: Yes, there was a big change. Because I was on a lot of those
committees in the East, you know. I was terribly busy. And
they made me chairman of the program committee for the Public
Broadcasting Service. And I had a very enjoyable time with it.
Morris: Arlene Daniel's paper reported a comment that I thought might
have come from you, "I have to devote all my energy to my work
in public broadcasting now, but it's not healthy to do that for
long." Is that you?
Charles: Well, I'd say that about any organization. Because you lose
perspective. At least, that's been my policy, is to never lose
my perspective on what I'm doing, to keep my fingers in enough
pies that I see how what we do affects the rest of the community.
I remember being very surprised when a very intelligent
friend of mine said, "Well, now that you're going on the Stanford
board, you're going to resign from everything else, aren't you?"
258
Charles: And I said, "I wouldn't think of it. I must see what effect it
has on everybody else, what Stanford may decide to do. It's
really been very nice for me.
Morris: How did you feel that KQED did affect the rest of the community,
what impact it had on San Francisco?
Charles: Well, I think that it really was a very nice effect in many
ways. Because I think people felt an affection for it — that
they would never think of in connection with a TV station except
something that appealed to the community so much, and I mean
literally asked them for things. But it was public education
in the East, PBS, that got this whole thing of community
participation started, and of course it is a good thing.
Recruiting Leadership
Charles: But the trouble is, there are certain boards of directors on
which I don't believe anybody should serve until they've served
before on something else, and get an idea of what the relation
ships are or how they operate.
Morris: And you think KQED is that kind of a board?
Charles: I think KQED is, and so is the board of trustees of a university.
Something where you need a little expertise in your experience
before —
Morris: In how a community functions?
Charles: In how an organization functions, the staff in partnership with
the lay people, and the responsibilities of the top management
of the staff, and those things. And respect for staff and
understanding that the place couldn't exist without them. You
learn all those things in smaller organizations that aren't
quite so important to themselves and to the community. Well,
they're all important to themselves, but I mean — think of a
university and the impact it has, and how important it is that
it survive whatever problems may face it. But in any case,
that doesn't always work.
It's one of those generalizations that you hope you're
going to decide who the president will be in time to give him
a little training, but you never do because — you never can,
because you just never can get people to face it that might be
what they want to do.
259
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
Morris :
You can decide who you would like to have be your successor as
chairman, but it's difficult to — ?
But you can't be assured that they will be. And it isn't a
question of your imbuing somebody with something as much as it is
with their having a very real understanding of what leadership
means in that organization.
But you also said something about, "It's hard to convince people
that they want to take on this job."
Yes. Oh, very! In fact, I wouldn't dare open up that question,
because sometimes it's premature, you know.
It's one of the standard things that people say, you know, "I
don't have the skills, and I don't have the time to take on the
chairmanship."
I know. I understand that, yes.
What do you do about that?
Well, you've got to just say, "Well, don't even think about it.
I just want you to understand what I have to do in order to
be president here, it won't hurt you to know that if you are ever
chairman." I think you have to play it very cool. You can't put
the pressure on because you can't guarantee their election.
No. Not on something where you've got an open election. But
in other organizations —
In some organizations they have a president-elect is what you
were going to say?
Is that a useful device?
Well, I've never thought about it. I've only seen it in the
big national organizations, and not locally. But there may be
some organizations that do, if I knew about them.
The chamber of commerce occurs to me.
Yes. But it's really a little different from the way we
operate.
I was thinking of the other model, where the nominating committee
presents a single slate of officers and directors for vacancies.
In that kind of a situation, normally those officers are elected.
260
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
They must be elected,
elected.
Your by-laws provide that they will be
Morris:
Charles :
/
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles :
When they're presented by a nominating committee, usually no one
votes against them.
That's right.
How does the nominating committee go about convincing somebody
that that person has the skills?
Well, they have to say, "We think you can do this job, whether
you do or not. We'd like you to at least allow us to put your
name in nomination." Of course, the people you really almost
never want are the ones who 're so eager that you're afraid of
them.
Right.
I'm always a little uneasy about people who are going after some
top job.
I'm always rather surprised, I guess,
and their willingness to take it on.
at their self-confidence
Well, I'm not, because usually they've got some other purpose in
mind. You know, what you have to be so leery of are people who
really want to make some use of your organization, in their own
personal life or their own personal climbing toward somewhere, if
that's what they're doing, whatever it might be.
What seems to be a happening in many organizations in recent years
is that people who are experienced in various community
activities are asked to come in to a new organization as president.
Of course. Of course.
How do you convince them that they should take on the presidency
of this organization?
Yes, right. Well, all you can do is say that, "We've been
observing you for a long time, and we feel that your special
skills are what are much needed by this organization. We'd like
to give you as much help as we can in the operation."
Do you know there are some people who just play their cards
so close to their chest that you can't give them any help, because
they've always got their moves all laid out in their heads, and
they're not letting anybody else in on it. And it's hard. It's
261
Charles: like the United States and its peace treaties. How do you let
these things all be done in public when it can become known to
people who may harm you with their knowledge?
Morris: How about the other thing that I understand is happening
sometimes — again with national organizations — the president
is paid, or the chairman is paid?
Charles: Well, it's really more of a change of title than it is a change
of policy. That is, now in almost all the television stations,
the manager is called "president." So that's why the lay person
is called "chairman of the board." I think you'd have to examine
the organization very carefully to be sure that what they're
doing is not just elevating their paid executive to the title
of president, which is now so customary. I don't think you could
get a paid person to take it if he didn't get the title.
Morris: Does that affect the quality of the voluntary kind of people?
Charles: No. It doesn't if you understand that it's part of the scene.
It's part of the way you're operating.
Morris: You wanted to stop at 11:30 today.
Charles: But, my dear, I took my time out. Is that fair to you?
Morris: It's now 11:35. So I think we're even.
Charles: All right. Thank you, Gaby. You've been very considerate of me.
Interaction with Commercial Television
[Interview 12: 17 March 1978] ##
Morris: We should pick up with anything that you want to finish so that
we complete the KQED story.
Charles: Yes. Well, KQED is of course one of the earliest of the
educational broadcasting stations, and it was one — you have
to admire the people who had the imagination to realize what
the reservation of that channel for educational television
was going to mean. I mentioned last time, I think, that
Jim Day and Jon Rice were the two young executives who really
persuaded people to get it started. We were very lucky to
262
Charles : have had them.
But public television is plagued by a problem in selecting
its managers because so many of the men who come up through the
ranks — I should say they were mostly men, but there are a few
women — are only working in the creative part, not the management
part. So when it comes down to the hard facts of managing a
station, they are not the best qualified. In commercial television
the manager's job is one of real management of —
Morris: A business enterprise?
Charles: A business enterprise. But you just have a hard time seeking
around to find people who have some business experience to come
into management of public television.
Morris: That makes me wonder if there's much interchange of staff or
other things between commercial television and educational
television.
Charles: Well, there is if the commercial stations are so inclined.
Because the educational stations have always been the poor
relations, having as they do to raise their own money,
whereas the commercial stations are given a certain budget by
the national outfit, whether it's KGO or NBC or whatever it may
be. Then they live within that budget. We have to raise our
money.
It used to be in the early days that some of the commercial
stations would offer to help whenever they could by giving a
piece of old equipment to KQED or sharing the use of their
station. Once or twice during an auction, we had trouble with
our station going off air, and one of the commercial stations
would come in and offer air time on theirs. That was much
appreciated. It wasn't until the last few years that the
public television program became kind of a threat to the
commercial station.
Morris: You do think that that has happened?
Charles: Oh, I do think so, yes. Not as much as will happen, providing
public television can concentrate on doing what they see to be
their field, with expertise and taste. But this will take a long
time, because everything is so expensive in the world of television,
You just are shocked when you — when we all switched over to color
television, those color cameras are worth I've forgotten how many
thousands of dollars apiece, and you have somehow to scrape
together the money to get one or two of whatever you need. You
will notice at times on the public television that they go to
263
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
black-and-white occasionally, especially during the auction,
when they can't use their color for everything on the auction.
Is it more expensive to operate the color equipment than the
black-and-white, too?
I don't think especially so, but I think that — a camera can only
do a camera's job. You can't expect a camera to be two cameras.
So that running a public television station is a delicate balance
between the many egos involved.
Yes, I can imagine that,
than —
The approach is more of a creative one
Well, the people in the programming don't consider themselves
just hired programmers. They consider themselves part and parcel
of the operation of the station. They want to see that it's run
according to their wishes and views. Of course, at a commercial
station, they get the programs from some central place, and they're
not up against that kind of a battle.
Where did Mr. Day and Mr. Rice come from?
experience?
What was their prior
Well, they had been working in the early days of educational
television. I think that was their background, actually, but
I don't remember where, because I wasn't in on — those were
very early days. They had the courage and the backbone to back
up their difficult situations. Also, there are always a certain
number of people who wanted to use public television one way or
another. And the management had to be very tough about that.
Use it in what way?
Well, to advertise themselves or to promote something.
Sometimes they were subtle about it, but nothing could be
quite subtle enough to avoid viewers realizing what was being
done.
Could you remember a couple of examples of the kinds of
things where people were trying to promote their own purposes?
Well, I would only say that people who were not quite qualified
in the creative world to have a show would press and press and
get all kinds of people pushing for them, and then you would only
have to find that they really weren't up to it. It's a grueling
thing, television is.
Morris:
I would wonder if some of these pressures that you speak about
264
Morris: also happen in commercial television?
Charles: Well, it's a more resistable force because the commercial
television is usually backed up not only by its own business
of running a business [laughs] to be competitive, but by the
sponsors or whatever show it is. The sponsors are the big
headache. Because sometimes they do have friends or relatives
that they want to see get on the air. It's just a madness, you
know. People just love to see their faces on television. It is
a most hypnotizing kind of a force for people. They just want
to get them somehow.
But Gaby, I don't know that I can think of an example. I
wasn' t always in on the — nobody was in on these things that the
poor manager and a program manager had to handle frequently.
They had to do it by themselves. But they could rely on their
board of directors. They had good boards of directors in those
early days who backed their manager.
Of course, educational television was feeling around
"What is educational television?" Sometimes they thought that
if it was interesting it wasn't educational. So that was one of
the big changes that came in, when we began to analyze in
preparation for a national organization — what could qualify
as "educational"? And we certainly expanded that thought because
we'd realize we were the only people who would do certain things,
such as putting on very esoteric films or programs of the arts.
They were a little out of the routine thing — only to find that
people were really very much interested in them. We have paved
the way quite frequently for what commercial television can do,
and now to some extent, is doing.
Morris: Is that the sense in which you meant that sometimes commercial
television has come to see public television as a threat?
Charles: Oh, well. No, I don't mean that. I just mean everybody measures
everything on audience ratings, and every once in awhile, the
so-called Nielsen ratings would give KQED a bigger percentage
of the audience than any of the commercial stations, and that
was just a difficult experience.
Morris: What kinds of things — ?
Charles: Well, I think mostly after our Newsroom came in, that form of
news became very popular.
Morris: What about things like the auction? Does the viewer rating go
up at that point?
265
Charles: Yes, it does. We have lots of people watching our auction, but
it really doesn't make any difference as far as our holding an
audience goes. It's some kind of a — different kind of an idea,
you know.
Morris: In a way, kind of like the World Series?
Charles: Exactly. That sort of thing, yes.
Morris: Would you say that the presence of public television has increased
the kind of community service broadcasting that the commercial
stations do?
Charles: Oh, I think so, yes. [Tape turned off briefly]
Thoughts on Oliver Wendell Holmes and Teilhard de Chardin
Charles: I was reading at some length the correspondence of Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, and he was the one — I think I may have
quoted this to you before — about how he wanted to be part of
"the action and the passion of his time."
Morris: That's a marvelous phrase, yes.
Charles: And I always felt that that particularly applied to my work in
television, because certainly it got very passionate at times,
and it applies, I think, to all volunteer work. You can't help
but begin to get into what is happening in the current world.
Morris: In the community at large.
Charles: Yes. So that I've used that a great deal in making speeches.
And I think it gives people a kind of a thrill to feel they're
part of the action and the passion of their times, which probably
never occurred to them, you know.
Morris: I was wondering if people said this.
Charles: Oh, yes. I think it always gives a little lift to people who
are doing volunteer work to hear what great minds have said about
such things. Teilhard de Chardin is a man I've read a great deal
of, and he has some very felicitous ways of expressing this, that
whenever you lift your hand to do something for others, you are
being impelled by — you may not realize it — by the force that
wants to build the world for good, and you are then part of the
266
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
great movement for the betterment of this world. "All that rises
must converge."
How did you happen to become interested in Teilhard 's writing?
Because I always follow allusions that I read. I once read a
remark in a current magazine about this man. It was the first
I'd ever seen about him. So I started immediately trying to run
him down in the library (I always said that I met him in the
library) . I think I perhaps have mentioned before that during
Mayor Alioto's incumbency, he telephoned me one day and asked me
if I would be willing to preside at a symposium of scholars that
he was putting on with U.C. Medical Center on Teilhard de
Chardin. I said, "Why, Your Honor, I can't understand your asking
me to do that." And he said, "Do you know anything about Teilhard
de Chardin?"
And I said, "Yes, I do, it happens, because I've read a great
deal about him."
He said, "There!
this."
It just shows that you were meant to do
Morris:
And I said, "Well, I would like to do it." Because I'm
familiar with how to preside, and that is no problem. The point
is, I always feel, when you're presiding at a meeting of scholars
or people who know more than you do about things, you don't even
want to try to bone up and become a competitor to them. The main
thing is to be able to hold the discussion in the direction that
it's going and make it possible for them to say what they want to
say.
It's unexpected to hear of the mayor organizing something like
that.
Well, it was interesting. He had done it, I always understood,
because one of his sons was in Jesuit school. And although
Teilhard was frowned on by the Catholics during his lifetime,
the boy became very much interested in what he could find out
about him. So the mayor used his own money, and he got the
University of California to help sponsor these lectures. I've
forgotten what they used to call them now.
The divinity schools in Berkeley have an annual symposium. It may
be one of those.
267
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Yes. Well, no. This was done by the U.C. Medical Center, who
were carrying on at that time — they published a book on it
afterwards.* It became one of their projects, although I think
the mayor contributed heavily to the project financially. It was
really quite a remarkable thing for a city to have a mayor who
was interested in doing that.
It's always interesting when people who are as active as you and
Mayor Alioto also find the time for purely intellectual pursuits.
[Laughs] Well, life is pretty empty without it, you know. William
James says in some of his writing — I think this in the Varieties
of Religious Experience — that unless what you are doing seems to
increase the general well-being of the world, you are going to
find it very empty, and Teilhard de Chardin speaks of that, too.
You've spoken of that yourself.
Have I?
In terms of your motivation.
Well, it certainly means that to me. I was very lucky that
volunteer work seemed to fit right into my whole education and
experience as an ideal thing for my enjoyment and pleasure to
work in.
I don't mean that — I made a young women very angry with me
one day when I said, "Don't do volunteer work if you don't enjoy
it." And she said to me, "What do you mean? People don't have
to enjoy things."
I said, "They do have to enjoy things. There's no point to
it, otherwise. Everybody suffers if they're not enjoying it.
And there are so many different kinds of volunteer work to do,
you can always find something that adds to your — " When I talk
about pleasure, I'm not talking about a hedonistic sort of thing,
but I'm talking about addition to one's experience or your
knowledge or your self-esteem or whatever it may be.
Or personal satisfaction.
Teilhard de Chardin; In Quest of the Perfection of Man, Gerald
0. Browning, Joseph L. Alioto, Seymour M. Farber, eds.,
Associated University Presses, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1973.
268
Charles: Right.
Morris: Would you say that you're a religious person, or is this more a
philosophical belief?
Charles: Oh, I am a religious person. Yes, I was brought up in a Methodist
Sunday school. The Methodist Sunday school is noted for its
studies of the Bible. That is, it uses the New Testament as the
basis for its work in the Sunday school. So that as a child, I
became very familiar with all of the stories of Jesus and the
parables, and they all seemed absolutely true to me, as they do
now.
Professional and Lay Roles; KQED, American Conservatory Theater,
and Stanford
Morris:
Charles
Morris :
Charles;
We got off KQED there for a minute.
I was just saying where there was the action and the passion —
In some organizations like KQED, there's much emotion goes into
that. Don't know why it should be so, but it does. Well, you
find issues emotional that you least expect, you know.
Things blow up emotionally when you don't expect them?
Yes. And people become emotional about things that don't look
emotional to you at all. I remember when I was on the Stanford
board, and I was asked to be chairman of buildings and grounds,
which I was thrilled to be, because it was the first time a woman
had been chairman of anything on the board of trustees. I noted
previously the amount of passion that got involved in the selection
of an architect or the appearance of a building or the landscaping,
or any of those things that you wouldn't think would have to
involve passions but they did.
I felt that the real reason they got so mixed up with all the
strong feelings was because the members of the board weren't
thoroughly briefed on what it was that we were trying to do.
Because you would come in there with the planning people, having
worked carefully on the location, the siting of the building
and the materials to go into it, and sometimes it would be presented
to the board as a factual matter. Well, it wasn't factual.
Somebody had to choose those things.
I made up my mind that I would see that somehow that board
was made familiar with what was needed.
269
Morris:
Charles;
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
So they had enough information —
Enough information to feel they were part and parcel of the
decision. At KQED, the main thing that the board wanted, as
all boards do, was to kept fully informed of what was going on.
It takes a very artful manager to know how to do that. I think
when we look back in years to come, that this pattern we have for
volunteer work, that is the operating of community institutions,
of the lay personnel involved in the board of directors with the
staff, and with the manager as a qualified professional person,
it's going to be a wonder that it could be made to work as well
as it did. Sometimes, you know, it just collapses.
A lay board?
I mean the relationship collapses. Because if you don't have a
manager who is sensitive to the needs of the board and what it
knows, what it must know in order to function comfortably, then
the whole thing dissolves into a torrent of irate people who
feel that they've been misinformed when they got on the board.
A lot of people think that when they get on the board, that
they're going to run the show, you know. This they have to be
disabused of. But at least they are going to know what the show
is about, and what it's doing.
For instance, on our theater board — of the [American]
Conservatory Theater — occasionally you find a board member who
thinks he's going to cast the shows and select which ones to put
on, you know. Well, you just have to distinguish between what is
the professional area and what is the lay area.
You worked for awhile on the ACT board, did you?
Oh, indeed I did. I helped to bring it here to San Francisco.
It had been down at Stanford doing a summer program, and I heard
that they wanted to come to San Francisco if they could. So I got
hold of Cyril Magnin, who was president of the Chamber of Commerce
at that time, and asked him if he thought the city would look
favorably on bringing a theater in residence in — a company. And
he put together a committee and was really marvelous.
The ACT group had some ties, too, to the Actors' Workshop, didn't
they?
Well, they supplanted the Actors' Workshop,
they really didn't have ties to it.
They carried on, but
Morris :
I was thinking that the workshop was absorbed by ACT.
270
Charles: Oh, they have taken on some of the people under their professional-
Morris: Right, and the Actors' Workshop no longer exists, as such.
Charles: Oh, no. It doesn't exist. Well, there isn't room for two of those.
Morris: It was a much smaller group.
Charles: Much smaller.
Morris: But it did have ties to Actors' Equity and was beginning to be a
professional theater.
Charles: Right. Exactly.
Morris: Were you with ACT just in that transition period when it was
moving from Stanford and getting set up?
Charles: Oh, I went on their first board here, when they formed a board and
I've worked closely with them ever since. I haven't been able to
give a great deal of time to it, but it's been one of my pleasant
experiences. I've enjoyed it a lot.
Morris: It sounds as if you think of that more as a hobby than as a
primary —
Charles: Well, you know, though Gabrielle, I remember once someone saying,
"Now you know, in your life, you've got to have work and play in
equal amounts. And you ought to analyze what you're doing, where
it fits." I suddenly, in analyzing my work, realized that my
boards of directors were not work to me. They were play. They
were my pleasures.
Morris: I think that's marvelous. When you think of the wear and tear of
presiding at meetings and organizing all the details that need to
be followed up between —
Charles: But it's so pleasant. It's such an interesting thing. I don't
think any thing's worth doing if it isn't work — some work
involved in it. I have never liked the "social life," so to
speak. I like to have something to talk about, and not just
chit-chat — gossip, if you will.
271
Public Broadcasting System; Reorganizing for Federal Funding
Morris: When you went on the national PBS board, did you find that
working on a national board was a different kind of experience
than working directly in a community project?
Charles: Well, not as different as you might think. That was what
surprised me. When I got back there to — of course, then it
gets to the organization stage, but the problems were essentially
the same, of hiring the right people to do the things that had to
be done, and keeping peace between the board of directors and the
professional staff. It was all the same.
Morris: That was the nature of the reorganization, wasn't it?
Charles: The reorganization was to recognize the role of the stations in
the public television world, whereas there 'd been talk on the
national scene that public television just happened. I think
without people's having it explained to them, they would not
understand it. Whereas in the commercial television world, these
programs come out, are piped out from New York to them.
Morris: From the network to the local station.
Charles: From the networks to the local station. In the public television
world, a great many programs originate in their own local stations.
Actually, as a result of the national organization, programs were
beginning to be set up to come out to the local stations — things
that the local stations couldn't afford to do by themselves. As
a group, they could all contribute to the showing of a national
ballet or a national opera or something.
Morris: Was it the local stations that had felt the need of some kind
of a national organization?
Charles: No, I have to say that it was this very gifted man from Texas, a
man who was a retired corporation executive, who saw what had to
be done. He realized that public television would have no power
if it continued being a lot of separate little entities all
around. They needed to be pulled together into a single
organization — that is, in some ways. Not to lose their identity
in their community, but to have some force on the national scene.
It had to be done, the stations had to be gotten together to do
it.
But you see, the managers — there were great battles going on
these days. Many of the managers had what we used to call at the
university "their fiefdoms," where they don't really want anybody
272
Charles: to come in, even though it was to their advantage to have it done
this way, for the national programming they could get.
Morris : Who was this Texas gentleman?
Charles: Mr. Ralph Rogers was his name. I can't speak highly enough of
him. He just gave freely of his time and his real ability in
this kind of thing.
Morris: Had he been involved in television in any manner before?
Charles: In Texas, yes. Just the local station, the way we all had.
That's how we came to be there. We were selected from our local
stations.
Morris: And each station had a representative?
Charles: No, no, no. It was not that way. It was much narrower than that.
I don't remember why I was — I had been on some kind of a national
committee that Jim Day had asked me to go on — I've forgotten
what it was, but I became acquainted with some of the people on
the national scene. At this time, they were not elected by any
group or anything, they were just appointed. So that the
geographic location of the stations was represented. But of
course, the geographic location of the station is not as important
as whether it's in a large city or a small city, because of what
you have to deal with in your programming.
Morris: In terms of the potential audience for it?
Charles: Yes.
Morris: At what point did the national organization begin to be interested
in funding and the matter of, I guess, first the Ford Foundation
and then the national government?
Charles: Yes. Well, right at the beginning. Ralph Rogers saw
immediately that lack of money was what was holding everything
back, and that it wasn't all going to be able to be squeezed out
of the community. There had to be a way to get the federal
government to contribute to it. That was what he started, to
try to get a bill through the Congress that would partly finance
public television, through the local stations.
Morris: Was that while you were on — ?
Charles: And that was while I was on, too. What a battle that was!
President Nixon took a terrible dislike to public television.
He didn't like the kind of news they gave about him. So he
273
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Charles: vetoed one bill for funding and started — after anything that came
along, he gave instructions to his staff. They were not to let it
through if they could avoid it. So Ralph Rogers went, right
after that, through his own congressman in Texas and his own
people — influential Republicans and so forth — but it was hard
going for a while.
Wasn't there some question that public television in general
was too liberal?
Well, that was Nixon's objection to it. It was altogether too
liberal for him, and too free-speaking.
Did you get in touch with California representatives?
Well, no, not really. Then Mr. Rogers had to organize the
stations into keeping in touch with their congressmen, being
sure that they knew what we were doing, so that when the request
for funds came up, we could get some.
Morris: And how did that work?
Charles: It worked out quite well.
Morris: If Mr. Nixon's objection was that public television was too
liberal and should be shut down, I should've thought that would
give you a lot of Democratic support for free speech.
Charles: Oh, it wasn't that simple.
Morris: Really?
Charles: It didn't become a partisan issue because, I guess, we were just
as hard on some Democratic congressmen and potentates as we were
on the Republicans.
Morris: Does this go back to Newsroom again?
Charles: No. Well, it's that type of news. It was coming out of Washington
by then. But of course, San Francisco was notorious for the
free-speaking on Newsroom.
Morris: Any subject.
Charles: Yes, on anything.
Morris: Were there specific attempts to have any of the stations change
their types of news broadcasts and their policies?
274
Charles: No. Because one thing that pervaded the whole structure of
public broadcasting was freedom of speech and the right of each
community to determine what each station should be. Because we
felt that a peculiar strength of educational television — so
called — was the fact that it really came from the grassroots.
What Ralph Rogers did was structure a kind of an organization
that would have an annual conference, to which delegates were
sent from each station then. And the directors of the succeeding
boards would be elected from those people. Ralph did a remarkable
thing. He just cannot be praised highly enough for that.
Every time I've written to him, I have said, "Someday, you'll
be really appreciated." I'm surprised there haven't been
articles about him in all sorts of national magazines.
Morris: History reports that you did succeed in getting federal funding.
Was that while Mr. Nixon was still President?
Charles: Let me see. Yes, I think so. I think we were able to get the
support of Congress. I think it was when poor Nixon was
beginning to fade, and so it was a little easier to get
support outside the White House.
National Programming and Ralph Rogers 's Role
Morris: There was a program committee that you served on.
Charles: Yes.
Morris: Was that at the same time?
Charles: Same time. We had quite a — our main problem there on the
national scene was trying to be sure that we got quality and
variety in our programs.
Morris: It was more guidelines rather than actual programs?
Charles: Oh, no. It was what we would produce from the national for the
local stations to use. The local stations didn't have to use the
national — in fact, they had to buy the programs. So every year
we set up a system of previewing what we were doing, beaming it
out to the stations so that they could decide what they wanted
to buy. All those things were innovations, and naturally
aroused the same hostility as always to change. Any change,
I've discovered, is difficult. The main thing is to keep cool.
275
Morris: That's a curious comment, when so many times people are saying,
"We want some change" in whatever is going on.
Charles: Well, they don't really mean it. As soon as they get it, they
start fighting with it.
Morris: So then if you've decided that there do need to be some changes,
how do you deal with people's anxieties?
Charles: Well, you have to attempt to get some sort of an agreement on
what it is they want, and try to remind them that they themselves
have asked for it.
Morris: Let's see. Mr. Nemerovski mentioned some meetings in Dallas and
West Palm Beach that he recalls as being very lively?
Charles: Oh, yes. Ralph called meetings all around the country. There
were some meetings out here, too.
Morris: And did some of these discussions about reorganization get rather
heated?
Charles: Oh, very heated, on the part of the managers. They were going to
lose something to the lay board. You see, previously the managers
had the sole communication with any national issues and were all-
powerful in each station. The board of directors of these small
television stations had very little to do with that sort of
thing. Those managers were protecting what they saw as their
authority, which Ralph Rogers had determined they should give
up, because he felt that only a lay board could operate this
kind of a thing correctly, and be responsive.
Morris: Were there other people besides Mr. Rogers who were particularly
important in moving some of these ideas ahead?
Charles: Well, I have to say that he was the leader. Then a number of people
from around the country began to see the wisdom of what he wanted
to do and supported it.
Morris: That must have been quite a load to carry on top of being
chairman of the local KQED board.
Charles: Oh, I don't think so. It was a refreshing change. Because I was
not carrying the load back there} Ralph was. I need to say, of
course, I had to be responsible for what I agreed to, but when
you're the leader of something, you have to have the creative
imagination to make it go. And sometimes it's rather pleasant
just to be a follower, if you can.
276
Morris: Yes, I would think so, and watch somebody else in action.
Charles: Right.
Morris: Did you learn some things from Mr. Rogers about moving a group
towards consensus?
Charles: Yes, of course. I mean to say, I think we were all equally
informed on that because certainly many of the people there had
had a great deal of experience in voluntary organizations.
Ralph had not, actually, because he'd come out of the business
world. But he had darned good common sense, and he knew how to
get things done. He and the managers had some knock-down, drag-
out fights that really were exhilarating. He seemed to have a
great deal of money, and he would pay for these expensive places
where we went. He didn't charge it to anybody, except occasionally
the organization would pay, but mostly he would. When I got down
to Palm Beach, I found out the room was a hundred dollars a day
that I'd been assigned to, and I said, "I can't possibly stand
that." "Oh, Mr. Rogers'll take care of it," and I believe he
did, too. At least, I didn't.
Morris: He was retired at that point?
Charles: Yes, retired from other businesses. Now he's — his business is
called Texas Industries, and just exactly what that is, I don't
know.
•f
Morris: I'm interested as to whether he was a lawyer by training,
perhaps.
Charles: No, not a bit, no. I don't think lawyers are particularly
good at this sort of thing, this community organization thing.
I think that sometimes they get a little too technical. I have
a friend who said to me, "I'm going to be a lawyer," she'd say,
"next time I get a chance. Why," she said, "You just can't just
ask a lawyer a question. When you ask him, he has to go look up
everything around it."
Morris: That's a marvelous comment.
Charles: And I really thought it was, too, because no lawyer worth his salt
is going to take a question that some female client asks him and
take it as the whole story. He has to find out what brought it
to that point — what the facts are and so forth.
Morris: I asked because it sometimes seems that in community organizations,
amongst the men, it's more likely to be lawyers.
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
277
There are more lawyers. Yes, there are. It's true.
And I wondered why that might be.
Well, I don't know. I think they may enjoy it, you know. But I
don't think it's because they bring the most expertise to it. You
occasionally need a lawyer's advice in these organizations. I
remember asking one lawyer — a young lawyer — for some advice in
some organization. Some legal advice. I can't remember what the
legal problem was, but he said to me, "Now Mrs. Charles," he said,
"I have to tell you that this is not being organized properly."
And I said, "Well, I have to tell you that that's not what
I'm going to discuss with you. I will ask you any legal questions
that I need to, but I don't expect you to tell me how to run
things. I've been doing it for too many years."
And how did that go down?
Well, he didn't like it very much, but I was his client, and he
couldn't do much about that — quite a bit older than he, too.
[Laughs ]
Now, are there some other aspects of the national public
broadcasting experience that you found particularly helpful
or interesting?
I think it was terribly exciting. You see, what Ralph perceived
was also the necessity for having an organization in which the
stations had a voice, I mentioned that before. They hadn't
had before, because the managers from the old tradition were
the ones who would have any voice, speak for the station.
And Ralph said, "This is not right. I don't care what the
manager thinks."
Well, you can imagine the managers didn't take to that
very well. "I want to know what the board of directors thinks."
Well, half the time, the manager would never have heard of the
problem.
278
15. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON COMMUNITY SERVICE
[Interview 13: 30 March 1978]##
San Francisco Housing Authority; Minority Participation
Morris: I have a few windup questions.
Charles: All right, go ahead.
Morris: A few things that we've missed on the way, and then there are a
couple of sort of general issues that I thought you might like
to take a look at.
Charles: All right.
Morris: We talked earlier about your work on the Housing Authority [see
chapter 11], and I wondered in general whether that was a political
appointment, and if you felt that politics was a different kind of
volunteer work.
Charles: Yes. But I thought it was volunteer work anyway. I don't say it's
necessarily a different kind. I'd say that anything that you do
for the community is volunteer work if you're not paid for it.
More than our toll collectors can say.*
In any case, my appointment was one of those kind of freakish
things — a friend of mine called me up one day and asked me — I can't
remember how I knew him before he was on the Housing Authority with
Reference to the then-current news reports that portions of
parking meter collections were being appropriated by city
employees .
279
Charles: me. He's a very nice man, of whom I'm extremely fond.
Morris : His name?
Charles: His name is Stephen Walter — spell it with a "p-h." Really one of
those splendid men that make you think of Dan Koshland and Walter
Haas when they were young, you know. He's very generous and kind
and nice too, and interested in the community, which is one thing
we have to stress in trying to get volunteer work back into being
a more popular occupation; that is to remember how much the men
used to do, in their constant concern about the city. I'm talking
now about Charlie Elkus, for instance, who was the president of the
Rosenberg Foundation the whole time I was on it. He was a man who
devoted a great deal of his time to problems in city government and
kept an eye on what was going on down there. I don't think we
really have any men doing just that thing right now in a voluntary
citizen way.
Morris: Is this because men don't take the kind of interest they used to?
Charles: Well, yes, I think there's some of that, and I think the League
of Women Voters doesn't do that kind of a job any more. The
League was on the job all the time, throughout city hall. But
what with the complexity of their program, now that they've got
every League working on national issues and state issues, the city
government, I think, gets left behind a little bit. I think we
ought to try to get out and try to stimulate the League to urging
their local branches to do more in the city government. You know,
just going and observing doesn't mean a thing. You can just go
there and sit for months, if you don't know enough about it to
understand what's going on or isn't going on, you know.
But anyway, this nice Mr. Walter called me up one day. (They
were neighbors, actually. I think maybe in some neighborhood
thing we met.) And he said to me, "I've been asked by the
mayor" — the mayor was Jack Shelley, who's a Democrat — "if you
would consider going on the Housing Authority."
"Well," I said, "of course I'm always interested in doing
something for the community." Even though I don't have much
background in housing, I have a feeling that those are the things
you can learn fast if you go on something like that.
Morris: When you were on the Housing Authority, was that a time when the
minority community was beginning to be active?
Charles: Oh, very. Yes. And they very much wanted a representative on the
Housing Authority board, you know — "The Authority," so to speak.
I thought they should have one if they wanted one. You have to
280
Charles: be prepared to take a chance on inexperience — because how are
people going to learn, if they can't do these things?
Then there was one sort of a problem that seemed to arise,
which was since half our housing is for the aging, should we use
a young person or an older person? Well, the young people were
the ones that were agitating for it, although occasionally some of
the old people would come down and present their case to us. They
were absolutely determined never to be in a building with young
children. They were bothered by them terribly. So that you really
could not mix them up.
In the first days of the Housing Authority, they were really
quite segregated, without anybody calling it that or thinking of
that particularly. They'd build a big place right over here in
Chinatown, for Chinese, and it's been exclusively Chinese because
the Chinese don't wish anybody else but themselves there.
That reminds me to tell you an anecdote, which I have always
enjoyed tremendously, about Mayor Alioto. This comes later. He
reappointed me to the Housing Authority; my term expired after
he was elected. I think it was four years, or something. And
he followed Shelley as mayor. We were dedicating a new building.
You know the tremendous amounts of money that are spent on these
housing units is incredible. They were built according to the
same pattern all over the country — these mammoth buildings that
cost several million dollars apiece.
So we were dedicating this building, and the mayor was to be
there. I think perhaps I was chairman of the Housing Authority at
that time, so I was there too. And Alioto started making his
speech. You know, he has a very gracious way with him, and a very
pleasing way, and he said a few words. Then he turned and he said,
"This young man standing here" — a rather plump young Chinese was
standing next to him — he said, "is my interpreter. He's going to
come in and repeat what I say in Chinese." And then he said to
the interpreter and the audience, "I wanted to tell you something
about my father. When he came here to the United States, he
wanted to be naturalized. So when they were asking him a few
questions, everything he said was being interpreted. He didn't
speak English. They asked him, 'Who is the President of the
United States?' And he said, 'A. P. Giannini.1
"But the interpreter turned to the man who was examining and
said, 'He says Calvin Coolidge,' so it worked out fine."
[Laughs] So the mayor said to the young interpreter, "I hope
you'll treat me as well when I'm speaking," which was really
very witty and nice, you know.
281
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles ;
Morris :
Charles:
Morris:
That's lovely., So you did succeed in having some new kinds of
people appointed to the Housing Authority?
Yes, indeed we did. It didn't cause any great ruckus because it
was the thing to do then. That was quite a few years later. I can't
tell you the year I was appointed. It's terrible.
I was thinking about your comment that you need to take a chance on
inexperienced people on a board.
Yes, right. You know, it's a very hard sequence of power that
comes into the Housing Authority. It's really a state agency,
wherever it is, and then the mayor actually makes the local
appointments, but the state government is very interested in
what goes on. So we recommended strongly to the mayor that the next
appointment be given to a young woman who had formed the tenants'
association, and also to an older person, and those appointments
were made. I had suggested that the Housing Authority be enlarged
from five persons to seven persons, thereby making room for these
two people and leaving five of the usual kind of appointees who had
had some experience in city government and so forth.
Were they added?
That's what we added, two other places. So this young black lady —
very young, with small children — was appointed, and then there was
a very old man — a very elderly man, I should say. I don't think
I can afford to say anybody's old any more [laughs] — to represent
the elderly tenants, and that seemed to work out pretty well.
They really did well on this commission. They tried to be
reasonable, and brought us questions that we might not have
thought of.
One little situation that I really always enjoyed was we had
tenants coming in frequently to — maybe I've told you this
anecdote before — frequently to ask for things. So one time we
went into the meeting and here was a whole group of people waiting
as we came through, to go in up to the front where we sat. We had
a room about the size of this living room. It was ridiculous
because of the hundreds of tenants who wanted to come see what we
were doing. There was no place for them to sit. They didn't need
to come more than once to find out that it was very uncomfortable.
So we kept trying to find another place to go, but there didn't
seem to be any. The school board, you know, finally moved themselves
out of their offices, just a few years ago, into one of the schools
where they had an auditorium where the audience could be seated.
Really get more participation from the — ?
282
Charles: Yes. Anyway, there was a crowd of people outside. So when we
got in and I called the meeting to order, I called for any
questions from the floor before we started on the business of
the meeting. And a young man — young colored man — said he had some
business he wanted to talk to us about. So then he opened the door
of the meeting room and beckoned, and in came a little parade of
people, who were all dressed for the occasion — something special.
It was like casting a theatrical show. There was an old lady in
a wheelchair, very old, and a white lady who was obviously in her
dotage. She was sort of nodding and smiling around, enjoying
every minute of it. And she had things draped all over the
chair, among them a saucepan and — I don't remember all the stuff
that was draped on that chair. And there was a little boy who
was dressed in his very best, wheeling her. You could see he'd
dressed for the occasion too.
So when this young man got in there, he said, "I want to
complain about our rooms in this building where we are. We don't
like them, and I brought this dear old lady here to show you that
she's there all alone. We all take care of her," he said. "She's
got all these things she's hung about her chair. Now," he said,
"this saucepan is her potty."
Morris: Oh, dear.
Charles: Well, it was really a very entertaining kind of a thing, and he had
everything planned so that we would see what he was talking about.
It was very well done.
One thing that's a pleasure — there were always a roomful of
blacks in our little meeting room, and they have a marvelous sense
of humor, so we had lots of good laughs together, you know. They
saw how funny this was just as well as the commissioners did.
Politics and Pressure Groups
Morris: There was one point I came across in my notes. You gave some help
to the women's division of the Republican Central Committee, a lady
named Grace McDuff, who still remembers your assistance.
Charles: Oh, yes. Well, not very much. You know, I have never been very
active in politics. I may have then. I don't know what Grace may
be talking about this time. But I would do little things they asked
me to do, like using my house for a meeting, if that's what they
wanted to do, and so forth. But partisan politics is really not
for me. I mean, we need people to work in it, but I enjoy being
283
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles:
freer than that in what I can do around the community. Because if
you're too identified with a party — for instance, I'm sure the
reason that I was appointed to the Housing Authority is that
they didn't want to put any more Democrats on; because of the
mayor's party being Democratic, they would try to balance the
commission. So then they had to investigate whether I was a
Republican or not, or what I was, because I'm not known as a
Republican. Well, I think everybody knows I'm a Republican if
you ask them, but being a Republican is not my life.
Your concern is more the overall functioning of the community.
Yes. I guess the League of Women Voters' policies of
nonpartisanship indoctrinated me too early, and I really have
always felt better when I could cling to that policy, to do what
I believed not because of any party situation, but because it was
what I believed should be done.
Do you think there's been any kind of change over the years, that
people tend to be more involved in "a cause," in terms of their
view of community service?
Well, I think a great many more people take part in trying to exert
community pressure. In fact, I think there's too much of that, now.
Because I think that it's not always rational, you know, and it's
hard for people who have to make the decisions to sort out what the
rational action would be and how much of what was being complained
about is irrational.
In volunteer organizations, as well as in boards and commissions?
Oh, I don't feel that. The volunteer organizations, I think, are
still very much wedded to their work, and not concerned about
playing partisan roles.
I was thinking of it in the sense of advocating a particular cause.
When we were talking about KQED, you expressed some concern about
people coming into KQED's board —
Exactly.
— with a particular ax to grind, as it were.
Well, perhaps I didn't express that correctly, because I don't
object to that, but I do object to not being notified of what it
is and giving a chance — one of my policies in dealing with city
government has always been that before you take a complaint in
publicly, you let the president of the commission, or whatever
it is, know what your problem is, and see if they don't want to
284
Charles ;
Morris :
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles:
do something about it right there and then. And very frequently
that happens, without a big to-do about it. That's why you are
bothered by people who seem to prefer to do it in a publicity-
seeking manner, than as a way of correcting whatever may be the
faults of the thing they want to deal with.
So that in general, your feeling is that it's better to try and
solve a problem informally, rather than make it a —
Well, I think human nature being what it is — after all, these are
people that are serving on these commissions. They don't like to
be humiliated in public either. I think you do much better.
I've been helping the school volunteers group to sort of get
themselves reorganized. I said, "You know, it really isn't hard
to do, if you'll remember you must always be thinking of how the
other person's going to react to whatever it is you're going to
do." It's kind of a habit you form. And I really started learning
that when I was making a lot of speeches. Because when anybody
interrupts you or starts attacking you, you really can't afford
to attack back. You've got to try to find out what it is that is
bothering them. So I've always tried to be very considerate of
people who — without being angry. Fortunately I don't have a
low boiling point. I don't have to fight off being angry. I
can move slowly if I want to, without my emotions getting in the
way.
Is that something you were born with, or is that something that
you've learned over the years?
No, I think I've learned that over the years. Being brought up
in a large family is one good way to learn that, you know. I
remember when I was young, I used to get awfully angry with one
of my siblings — either one of my two sisters or my little brother —
and then I would say to myself, "Now, I hope I can stay angry
long enough to remember that I'm not speaking to them for three
days," or something. But I never could. And I suddenly realized
that wasn't really what I wanted to do, as I got older.
Well, of course, it's a matter of emotional temperature as
much as it is habit that way. I think people who are born with
very touchy emotions can learn to control them if they recognize
the problem. But of course, it's easier if you don't have to.
285
Volunteers' Expectations
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris:
Yes, I would think so. One of the questions that has come up, in
terms of the volunteer world in general, is whether or not there
have been changes in people's expectations of what their role will
be in a volunteer organization.
Oh, I don't think so. I went to the annual meeting of the San
Francisco [General] Hospital Auxiliary, which is a very large
auxiliary, and I was greatly touched by these volunteers that we
have out there — lovely people that come out. Lots of older
people come, and it brought to mind the kinds of things these
lovely women do. And in no place could it be more necessary than
in a big city hospital, where many are friendless and frightened
and in many ways not equipped to help themselves very much.
In some of the newer women's organizations, the idea is expressed
that if work is worth doing, it's worth being paid for.
Yes. Well, they're just looking at it wrong. I've got to get to
work on this little booklet that I promised Lynn White I would write,
because he thinks volunteer work is in danger of disappearing.
I'm not sure I'm that worried about it, but I think the real need
it meets is in yourself, that women particularly need to have a
feeling of giving to others in some way — others who cannot repay
one.
Recently, I've been to lunch several times to one of the
small churches around. I had forgotten all that side of life,
which I knew much about when I was growing up in a small town, but
these churches, it's very sweet. They have their women's guild
to serve a lunch if there's going to be a meeting over the noon
hour that people should attend, and to me, that's just as much
volunteer work — though they may be serving their own congregation.
You're doing for somebody who is not going to be able to repay
you in money at all.
Where do you think this new idea came from?
Oh, I think it's one of the militant feminist ideas. These are
going to have to sort themselves for the next years, as to the ones
that don't need to be emphasized so much. Because volunteer work,
such as I think of it, and the men, too, who have paid attention
to city hall and one thing and another — and they don't do it for
money or any prestige that would accrue, either.
Although the idea is suggested sometimes that they do it because
it's good for business.
286
Charles: No, no. Never. Not the men I have known, the grand men who
somewhat preceded me; there 're not so many of them in my generation
now that 're doing that sort of thing.
Morris: Why not, do you suppose?
Charles: Well, I don't know. I think there's always a kind of change in
the generations. I think that occasionally the next generation
retreats back into private life just as a kind of alternative to
what they grew up with.
Morris: And then their sons and daughters will go out again?
Charles: Will go out again. It's just the same with the people who made
so much money in the early days of San Francisco. Not infrequently,
their sons and daughters are not money-makers or carrying on in
the same enterprises. But then the next generation will assume
the business career.
Government Funding
Morris: How about the effect of government programs and government
funding, which have moved into many of the things that used
to be done by private voluntary groups?
Charles: Yes. It's not good. It's very bad. I think we ought to try
to have a gentleman's agreement with the government that they
won't do that. Because it was very disruptive to our organization
at the county hospital, when our director of volunteers received
word there would be eighteen volunteers coming out on next
Monday to be put to work in the children's ward. Well, she was
frantic. Because the jobs have to be selected carefully, and you
have to know your bounds here pretty well and your volunteer.
Morris: You mean a government agency was sending her eighteen people
who were going to be volunteers.
Charles: Yes. And they said, "Of course, we will pay them."
"Well," Mrs. Clifton said, "what do you mean, you will pay
them?"
"Well, they're being paid so much an hour for doing volunteer
work." That's disruptive to our program, where nobody's paid
anything except for the few expenses, and not everybody wants
that, you know.
287
Morris: Was this under the ACTION program?
Charles: It was a new program the federal government put in.
Morris: There seems to be a real push to include volunteers in many
government programs.
Charles: Well, there is. Every now and then you get in an organization
where the men don't know what the volunteers are for. Then all
of a sudden when they discover them, the men think they've got it
made, and they impose so much on the volunteers that they can't
continue. Volunteers have to be dealt with in a programmed way,
where somebody knows what they're supposed to be doing and how
much they can stand.
Morris: There's a limit to how much volunteers can do?
Charles: Oh, there is indeed. A limit as to how much they can do and be
asked to do. And they have to be fitted to their capabilities.
That's why the whole movement of having direction of volunteers
has been important. We used to do all that ourselves. As part
of the organization, we always had a person in charge of the
volunteers — I mean, a volunteer. And it was all right, but they're
not on the job all the time, you know. Volunteers come and go,
as they must, and they also can't always tell you that they'll
be on the job at nine a.m. every day. The reason they are
volunteers is because they can't do that much. Or let us
say, because they don't choose to be working nine to five.
Morris: That seems to be another factor in the public policy thing.
That as people retire younger and working hours generally are
less, there is almost a sense that "we have to find something
for these people to do."
Charles: Well, that's nice for them to do it, but why don't they put them
through the regular volunteer channels? I mean, that would be the
best way. I'd have to think about how to work that out. I
haven't really given a great deal of thought to it.
New Ways of Approaching Old Problems
Morris :
A couple of people have said, "You know, what we'd really like to
know is how do we involve large numbers of retired people in
community activity, volunteer work."
288
Charles: Yes. Well, I was surprised at my sister, who's a retired school
teacher in Stockton — a retired principal — she had never really had
any interest in volunteer work. Now she's working in a hospital
as a volunteer and enjoying every minute of it. It's a new thing
for her entirely. But she had not been organized in a large
group. She went and got the job herself.
Morris: Good for her. Just on her own initiative?
Charles: Through the Volunteer Bureau, I imagine.
Morris: Do you suppose there's a limit to the number of volunteers that a
community can use?
Charles: Well, I think there's a limit to a number that an organization can
use. Somebody has to be aware of what the jobs are to be done.
The volunteers resent terribly make-work. You know, they recog
nize it for "busy work." They don't get taken in at all.
Arlene Daniels was over here the other day, asking me to
give a little thought to whether I thought that volunteers could
build up a vita, you might say, or experience that would qualify
them for something else, should they ever need to have it.
Arlene is quite wedded to the idea that volunteer work prepares
people to go to work, but that's not very true, you know. If
that's why they're doing volunteer work, they're foolish to do
that.
Morris: What about younger people?
Charles: Well, yes, I think young people may get a taste for —
Morris: The career exploration kind of thing?
Charles: Right. But I think people should be doing volunteer work because
they want to contribute something, and of course they want to do
something for themselves. Anyway, Arlene feels their honors ought
to add up what an academic person's honors do in a career
situation.
Morris: They do when they get to your level and Leslie Luttgens's level?
Charles: No. Arlene claims they don't.
Morris: Really?
Charles: Yes. Because there's no translation between, compared to someone
applying for a job who's got all kinds of records in employment.
There's no real equality of —
289
Morris: Of the experience, if a volunteer is applying for the same job?
Charles: Of the value of the experience. No attempt to equate them — that's
what I should say. So she was asking me if I'd give some thought
to that. Well, I will. [Mrs. Charles added the following comment
when reviewing the transcript] But I believe there is a way to
provide the kind of background Arlene was looking for. That is,
that a volunteer could build a career record in case she ever
needed a job. It seems to me that the way to do that would be to
suggest to the agencies that use volunteers that a record be kept
by the director or the president of the auxiliary of certain key
qualities of each volunteer. That these records be kept carefully
so they will be available. [Transcript resumes]
Morris: There's two things there. One is the personal growth and
satisfaction and/or contribution to the community. The other
is the community as an organism; what makes a community function
and how do the volunteer organizations fit into that.
Charles: Right.
Morris: And that's something that interests me. How can you tell whether
a community is healthy or unhealthy and what do the non-profit
organizations contribute to that?
The other thing that I've come across in the literature is
the idea of volunteer organizations' own life span. Are there
some cases where volunteer organizations really change their
goals and — ?
Charles: Well, they've got to fill a need. I notice, for instance, that
the March of Dimes has changed its whole goal now, to something
else, which I don't find very appealing. It seems to me what
makes it questionable — is what they are trying to do, just raise
money for something, instead of it being the thing they want to
help? But I don't know how successful it's been, doing that.
Within a community, any volunteer group that is worth its salt
is really watching closely, and they're more apt to be able to
meet unusual needs as they arise than a paid staff is, which is
often highly trained to meet these things.
Morris : That volunteers can see what needs to be done?
Charles: Well, yes, the director of volunteers or the president of the
organization, whoever is watching all those things, can see, and
the institution itself needs to be ready to tell the director of
volunteers, "We don't need very many volunteers in this area any
more because of some new development there that takes highly
trained people, but we will need more somewhere else." And so
290
Charles: then in conference with that person, you go and develop that.
[Tape off briefly]
Some people really aren't clear what they want to do with
their volunteers. One person came to see me about an auxiliary
for an organization that he was a director of, and the naivete
of some men about things they can get away with and can't with
people was really astonishing. I shouldn't limit that to men
because it's true with women, too. But upon cross-questioning
him, I found he already had an auxiliary at his place, and he's
starting another one on top of it because they aren't doing quite
what he thinks needs to be done. I don't think he can get away
with it. "Well," I said, "you can try it." I said, "If you have
never been in the middle of a ladies' fight, you haven't
experienced — "
Morris: [Laughs] A real battle.
Charles: Oh, yes. Even if they aren't doing everything that he wants,
when somebody sees an interloper coming in, they're not going to
stand for that, you know.
Morris: You mention in your thoughts on the establishment of successful
auxiliaries that in your experience, one auxiliary body is enough.
Charles: But now I should point out that Children's Hospital in
San Francisco has about four or five auxiliaries, and they seem
to get along all right. It's historical, you know. They know
what their different fields of service are.
Morris: In some cases it seems as if they were set up almost as a
friendly rivalry.
Charles: You mean in a competitive way?
Morris: Yes. If there's a group of separate fund-raising auxiliaries.
Charles: Oh, well, that might be. When it's fund-raising, that's something
quite different from the service work you do. It's easy to measure,
you know.
Morris: It sounds as if it might be a kind of benchmark of volunteer work —
that the first thing to do is to determine what the organization
wants to do and what the different individuals involved can do.
Charles: Absolutely. The first thing to do is for the body that's going
to have an auxiliary to decide what they want the volunteers to
do. It's probably one of the few times they'll have a chance to
291
Charles: do that easily. They need to give a lot of thought to that before
they start it. Decide on the limitations, and say to them, "Now,
we'd like you to come in here and give us some assistance in the
office" or if it's in a hospital, in the gift shop, or "start a
gift shop for us." But the limitation is very important. Because
volunteers get in the nurses' hair and generally you just have lots
of trouble, big trouble.
Morris: In your own experiences, have what you wanted to do and what you
saw as the task for yourself personally — have they changed over
the years? What it was that interested you and you yourself
wanted to do?
Charles : In doing volunteer work?
Morris: Right.
Charles: No, I think that's the wonderful thing about volunteer work. There
are so many choices. You could almost cut the goods to suit the
cloth, really. Because there are many things that need to be
done in a community, if you can find a way to do them.
At the annual meeting of the San Francisco Hospital
Auxiliary I couldn't help but smile to myself that Roger Boas,
our new chief administrative officer, was there. Because the
hospitals in the city fall under the administrative officer's
side, you know. We have a dual government, with the mayor doing
one thing, doing the political end of it, and the administrative
officer doing the management end, so to speak. It's really like
a city manager type.
When we tried to start this auxiliary at county hospital,
Mr. Thomas Brooks was the CAO at that time, and a man I was very
fond of — because he was a very earnest, dedicated man — and he
just didn't want any women "fooling around" his hospitals, he said.
So we didn't argue with him very long. We just said, "You talk
to the personnel out there, and if you find a place where we can
do a little work, let us know, and we'll do a little bit there
and then move out from there if we can be useful."
You should see the adulation the city government gives us
now. Because it saves them a fortune, you know, having volunteers
to do a great many things, such as run an information desk at the
door. Oh, we had some interesting times. Really, it's fun to look
back on it. One time, on the board of the auxiliary there, I was
trying to get it to have a little change in complexion. I used
ex-politicians and everybody I could think of. I got Harold Dobbs
to go on.
292
Morris:
Charles ;
Morris :
Charles:
Morris :
Charles ;
Morris:
Charles
Morris:
Charles:
Really? A member of the board of supervisors?
He really wanted to be mayor at one time, and for quite a while,
as a matter of fact.
Yes, I have heard that.
It was he who got us through one very difficult problem that we
came across. Somebody said one day, "Where's the money go from
the vending machines?" The hospital throughout is filled with
vending machines .
And they said, "Well, it goes to the blind?" And we said,
"What blind?" Well, then there was much doubt about it, and it's
really kind of a strange thing. Nobody knew exactly. There's
some organization in Sacramento that they pay over their profits
to. The vending people evidently have their own rules about giving
the profits to some charitable organization, and we wanted them
for the auxiliary. We said, "We have lots of sympathy with the
blind, but we'll know what the money does if we get it here."
So we had to get an ordinance through city hall, and Harold Dobbs
knew what the steps were to do that, and it was a great help to
us.
I should say so. How did he feel about coming on something like
a hospital auxiliary?
Oh, he loved it. He was pleased to get to know a lot more about
the city, and being a politician, he was widening his acquaintances
all the time.
I should say. So he was kind of building his constituency?
Well, I don't think he was building anything, no — at least, it
wasn't that deliberate, and I would never say that. But it was
just a thing that happens. The more different kinds of things
you do, the more people know you, know who you are.
Okay. What are the things that we have not talked about that you
think are important to a volunteer as an individual and to the
functioning of volunteer organizations?
Well, I used to say in some of my speeches, "We did not graduate
from college to gain freedom from thinking." You've really got
to think about your daily life if you're going to have a happy
life, and plan it every day, if you could, in the mornings, what
it is that you're going to be doing today step-by-step. Then
it means you avoid that annoying thing of going right past a
place where you need to do an errand on your way somewhere else.
293
Charles: But if you've thought about that, you won't do that.
And then I think every problem lends itself to thought by
yourself, if you can just sit and think for a while what you're
going to do about some human problem that comes up, or a human
relations problem in the organization.
Teilhard de Chardin would say that all it needs is the
addition of a little love, and that's really what you do, I
think, when you think like that, is try to apply your
consideration — if you don't want to call it love — for human
beings as to what a problem may really be. It may not be the
ill will of anybody or ill doing of anything else.
Morris: It sometimes seems as if in recent years three or four new
organizations have sprung up to do the kinds of things that
older organizations thought they were already doing. Is that
a valid observation?
Charles: I think so. If they don't move with the times, they're going to
be superseded. There's no doubt about it.
Morris: How about some of the lively young organizations that — a lot of
them went through the Rosenberg Foundation getting started. I'm
thinking of self-help organizations, neighborhood organizations.
Charles: Yes. Well, those are new ways of approaching old problems, which
is what foundations are for. And they should be — that should
happen. Something that is acceptable to the young people. I'm
very admiring of these young people.
I've been helping for a couple of years a young woman who —
I think I may have mentioned before — who wanted to do something
about the children in the juvenile courts. She believed they
didn't have an opportunity to learn any of the arts, which she
thought would be particularly beneficial to them. So we talked
it over. She formed herself a little board, and she did all the
work herself. She first accumulated a number of teachers around
who would work with her, and this wasn't volunteer work. She
was going to try to raise enough money to pay enough that they
could live on. These were not people who could afford to do that.
And she really has had a great success. She's been able to get
money from the Alameda County supervisors — or whatever the name of
their governing body is — and foundations to get herself started.
She's really done a remarkable job.
294
Advice to Volunteers
Morris: It must be very satisfying to you to have people coming to you
steadily for advice.
Charles: Oh, it is. I love it. It's the thing I like more than anything.
I love to have people come and ask me if I could help them. And
sometimes I can help them work out — some problems, you know, are
very simple when somebody else just takes a look at it. I think
I may have mentioned this as an example, but anyway, a woman from
some outlying town came to me, and she said they were having so
much trouble in their hospital auxiliary. Well, nobody will
stand for having five people — it's got to be one to one.
Morris: If it's a problem you want to talk about.
Charles: If it's a problem, you can't have them descend on you with an
army. So I said to her, "You just designate one person to talk
to your director of volunteers, and you'll find every thing '11
smooth out. Well, it just smoothed out like a charm. She had
thought she had a very stubborn director of volunteers.
Morris: That reminds me of a chapter in a textbook on personnel
administration in business. You're supposed to blame in private
and praise in public.
Charles: Right. Yes, aid try to make your praise even-handed, and don't
have the same person always getting the praise. Especially if
you do it in public.
Morris: Well, I must say that your wisdom is a blessing to have, and I
think what we have on these tapes will be exceedingly interesting
and also helpful to people.
Charles: I hope so. But I'm going to get down to writing now. I've got
quite a lot of material I've been putting together all this time.
Morris: Good.
Charles: In my little book, I'm going to have an appendix of pointers on
certain things I used to talk about. I had a lot of pointers for
my class on getting something under way. Never seat people in
rows. People don't like to look at the back of each other's
heads if they can possibly be seated in a way so they'll look
at each other in the face. And if possible, try to have a little
refreshment for them. It helps a great deal, especially when
they're people who don't know each other very well. Getting
295
Charles :
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles
acquainted takes time. That doesn't happen in just a minute.
You have to have two or three meetings to get people feeling
comfortable with each other.
None of this is very hard. It's mostly just common sense in
how you like to be treated. I said to my girls, "Just think about
what you'd like to be offered to you, and then see if you can't
arrange it so that it goes to the others, too.
Particularly for people getting started, I imagine they feel very
uncertain about what they're doing, particularly when they're
trying to take a leadership role. Many people seem to be very
nervous about being leaders.
Well, they have to take their lumps in doing that. Sometimes
we make mistakes which later come up to haunt us, or at least we
look back on with horror, to think we did something like that.
Let's see. I'm trying to think of some of my bad mistakes when
I was young and new. [Laughs]
I don ' t imagine there were any ,
I see.
They don't rise up to haunt you,
Morris:
No, they don't stay with me anyway. I try to be sure that what I
remember are the good things that I can use again, because life is
better that way. I'm not a Pollyanna, but I'm sure you harm your
mind and your attitudes when you hold onto unpleasant experiences.
I used to tell one anecdote about my husband. I think I may
have told this before, but in any case, one time in one of my
numerous auxiliaries, I was distressed by the way. somebody was
treating me, one of my contemporaries. And I said to Al when I
came home — "This has been a bad day," or something like that.
And so he didn't say anything. He just — we don't spend much
time derogating people, you know, and I thought he wasn't even
listening, in typical husband style. Then I decided I wanted
to have a little cocktail party about a month later, and I
said to Al, "I think I'll ask--" and I mentioned this girl and
her husband.
He said, "But that's the one that treated you so badly."
And I said, "But I paid her back for that a long time ago. I
took care of the whole thing." I decided then that that's a
very important reason why you shouldn't preserve these little
incidents or rough times, because you do take care of them one
way or another, and they haunt you if you've spread it around
all over town what the problem is.
It's more important to keep moving forward.
296
Charles :
Morris:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
Morris :
Charles:
Charles:
Morris:
Charles :
It's more important to keep the organization healthy and moving
than to carry a grudge.
I think that's a very wise comment. I hope that the transcript
of our talks will be helpful to you in writing your book.
Well, I hope so too, for heaven's sake, Gaby,
patient with me.
You've been very
You've been very helpful to Bancroft, and it'll be a marvelous
memoir to have. As I say, I hope it helps you because I think
the book is going to be very important.
Well, I don't like to write. You know I like to speak. I'm a
speechmaker by nature, and it's very hard for me to write. You
don't write the way you talk. Nobody does, I believe. I have
never had a written speech in. my life, you know. I've always had
about two or three points that I wanted to make. You have to at
the outset make your point and make it when you close, if it's
something you want them to remember. Then I have a few little
anecdotes I like to intersperse because if they can laugh about
something, they'll remember it, too.
Did you polish up your speech-making skills when you were teaching
at Mills?
No. Oh, no. That was quite different. Those classes were
conducted in a most informal way, and I had the youngsters
switch their chairs around so we sat in a circle, and they
saw how different it was from sitting in rows, when we were
carrying on our classes. I tried to make everything an example
of the way it ought to be done. That's a good method of
teaching, I would think.
Well, I think so. I think they enjoyed it.
Well, maybe we should wind up now. I don't want to keep you too
late.
Oh, let's do it, Gaby. Thank you.
Transcribers: Justan O'Donnell, Bob McCargar, Marie Herold
Final Typists: Judy Johnson, Leslie Goodman-Malamuth
-; Appendix II 297
Sone Thoughts on the Establishnent of Successful Auxiliaries
Caroline H. Charles
Copyright, November, 1960
Anticipation is the secret of successful orgsniration. Human beings in org
anizations behave in sone predictable ways. It is well to consider them.
The primary purpose of an Auxiliary to an established coxmunity organization
is always in the field of ioproved community relations. Fund-raising, and Service
inside the organization, are concomitant benefits; but they aust not be considered
as primary purposes* This concept is important, for it mans that the parent org
anization oast satisfy itself that its pi-ogram is sound, efficiently operated, and
filling a valid community need. In short, that its house is in order, for in es
tablishing an Auxiliary it is about to add a large family all at once, which will
go out into the community giving its personal and uninhibited reaction to what is
inside the organisation.
In the past, we have seen what might be called fringe Auxiliaries, operating
for fund-raising purposes only, recruiting their raaabership by social exclusive-
ness, and asking no embarrassing questions of their parent groups* For many rea
sons this kind of organization has hard sledding today. Commity volunteers are
sophisticated and aware of responsibility for what they join. They are seeking
also the personal satisfactions of service, development of skills, and good
companionship while meeting a community need. Lady Bountifuls are passe; the head
and the heart are equally involved and their questions must be answered* Through
Auxiliary members, the good or bad word about an organization reaches far more
people, and more effectively, than any amount of routine publicity.
In giving life to any human entity, we must anticipate the new self-will that
comes into being. Parent organizations in creating Auxiliaries, can be more suc
cessful than some ordinary parents, in setting up boundaries of operation, if they
give sufficient anticipatory thought to the matter* Auxiliaries do not expect to
operate in the field of policy for the parent group, but the Auxiliary body needs
to know clearly what these policies are, and particularly the limitations of the
Auxiliary's role* Many questions need to be asked and answered inside the board
and staff of the organization, before the first steps are taken to create this
new entity. »
The three purposes of modern Auxiliaries are then: Cooicunity Relations,
Fund- Raising, and Service, Points for discussion around these three areas now
follows
I. Community Relations
1. These begin at home. Are there board members and spouses, former
board members and spouses, other long-time interested persons, who
need to be informed personally of Board's plans? This should be by
word of mouth, which takes time and patience. How do we make best
use of these persons? - establish an honoryvjbr advisory council?
Are tfcere already established groups who will want a role? How do we
fi£ them in. Be careful, one Auxiliary body is enough.
298
-2-
Are there any old enemies? People like to be invited to join things,
or to be asked for advice (you don't have to take it), but this oust
be done in advance of general knowledge. Let's not create any nev
quarrels!
2. Re-statement of purpose of organization* Is name properly descrip
tive? Publicity attendant upon establishment of Auxiliary is a von*
derful opportunity to look at what you have to sell. Professional
help is often available en a volunteer basis, and would be valuable
now in developing a concise and appealing stat extent of objectives*
By the same token, areas where public understanding has been difficult
in the past, need to be considered and possibly expressed* Auxiliary
•embers should be safe-guarded from enbarrassnents that could have
been anticipated, for embarrassment is not easily forgiven*
3* Is staff in sympathy with the idea? Hake no mistake, an auxiliary in
creases work of staff, and this Bust be faced by both Board and staff
or poor ccmranity relations begin right in the office* Which staff
member, which board member, will be auxiliary contact, and does each
understand the built-in limitations (headaches! ) which accompany
volunteer participation, as valuable as it is*
4* Tone of Auxiliary to be established. Uhom are you trying to reach in
the community? What kind of people do you need inside Auxiliary to
give it continued life, gain community acceptance? The opportunity
is dual: to strengthen present associations, and to add new and im
portant ones, A nucleus of only 3 or 4 persons is needed initially,
but the moment those are designated and go to work, part of authority
goes out of Board*
5* Does the Board wish to establish size and type of Auxiliary? i.e.
whether limited in membership, or open; women, or both men and women;
amount of dues; other limitations, some of which will be suggested
later* Board may not wish to pre-determine some of these things, but
once the Auxiliary is on the road it will be too late. Board by-laws,
in creating Auxiliary, will include its limitations*
II. Fund-Baising
1* This is a delicate matter* Most Auxiliaries expect to raise funds
but who decides purpose to which funds will apply? If Board pre
disposes this matter, a well-defined project should be named. Few
Auxiliaries will, for any length of time, be willing to add their
funds to general budget. They want to see something that is theirs,
to which they point with pride. If it is possible to give them some
choices, it makes them happier* Board (in their by-laws) usually
reserve the right to review and accept purposes and type of fund-
raising contemplated by Auxiliary, and limitations are stated.
299
-3-
2. Dues are usually small, and provide sufficient fends for business
of Auxiliary,
3. Board by-lava,, and Auxiliary by-laws, usually provide that all funds
of Auxiliary revert to parent organization ia case of dissolution.
HI. Service
1, It is difficult to hold a group together, and hold their interest
unless they have purposes more immediate than an annual fund-raising
event. The heart must become involved with the purposes of the org
anization, and the most effective method is through sufficiently
frequent participation in the work, which also gives reasons for
regular meetings..
2, However, the areas in which volunteers may make a contribution are not
always easily defined. In a hospital, for instance, where rules are
expected, the volunteer needs to be reminded only infrequently that
she is not a nurse or a doctor. But in other kinds of organizations,
board and staff must carefully review their programs* There may be
existing areas where volunteers can be used, or new ones may be de
veloped. Volunteers resent busy work, and are quick to spot it,
They want to give needed service, develop some skills, and add to
their knowledge and experience. But they cannot be allawed in pro.
fessional areas, and this must be anticipated and made clear. Some
volunteers enjoy lonely jobs, but most of them enjoy the good com
panionship of others in what they are doing.
3, Any job designated for volunteers must be well back-stopped. Volun
teering is no woman's primary job, and conscientious as she may be,
illness at horse, or some other hazard, may prevent her from fulfill
ing her obligation,
T?hen Board has considered the foregoing matters, and others which may arise
lout of the discussion; when its authority for creation of an Auxiliary is ready to
be added to the By-Laws (which should include provision that Auxiliary By-Laws,
iand future Amendments, must be accepted by this Board prior to Auxiliary action),
it is ready to name the organizational nucleus, and a Board Hember advisor.
This nucleus should include, or should immediately recruit, persons qualified
to act as:
1. Temporary Chairman (this cculd be Board member)
2, Membership Chairman (and committee)
3. Public Relations Chairman (this is the most important area in which the
Auxiliary will work, and a well qualified person is needed.)
4, Service Chairman (to define further opportunities for volunteer work
within previous limitations, set up organization, etc.)
(Note ^it is simpler, in these crucial areas, if specific persons are
recruited for these soecial -fobs. The hazard* of the vhale
300
-4-
fall-ing OB its face are multiplied greatly if key jobs are left open
to chance in these* initial stages. It is easier to avoid the wrong
person seeking a job, if it's already filled.)
At this point, there is three to six months' work ahead. A series of meetings,
say every two weeks, should be held, at which more and more interested persons
should be brought in, program reviewed, etc* If membership is to be elective, or
even if not, preparatory spade- work by personal conversation Dust be done, in order
to arrive at an adequate number of founding Auxiliary Members* Other committees
will have to be appointed: By-laws committee, Hospitality Committee for first
general meeting; Treasurer and Tfays and Means Committee, etc. ; and finally, a
Nominating Committee to prepare slate of officers*
The first general meeting of Auxiliary is ready to be called when:
1. By- Laws are ready for adoption.
2* Slate of Officers is ready for action.
3* Publicity Chairman has prepared Press coverage, and made her contacts.
4* Services are clearly defined, adequately chaired, and ready to be filled.
5* Members have been invited to join and have had time to accept.
6. Immediate future plans are all tied together and ready for announcement.
The first meeting cannot afford to leave anything to chance. The atmosphere
of confidence, enthusiasm, and good will; plus good exposition of the heart of the
organization's contribution to the community, must be carefully planned for. The
Board, the Staff, must demonstrate its wholehearted support of the Auxiliary
forever more.
Appendix III 301
»
San Francisco Examiner, February 7, 1979
Caroline Charles
i . . .
Ma ttie Jackson
Women's commission
achievement awards
By Mildred Hamilton
{ "Hie long and distinguished community service of
Caroline M. Charles and Mattie J. Jackson will be recognized
jiext Wednesday when they receive the San Francisco
^Commission on the Status of Women's first awards for
Outstanding achievement
The two will be honored at a public luncheon at which
fclayor Dianne Feinstein will speak at the Sheraton-Palace
Hotel.
• Charles, whose volunteer organization leadership goes
back 30 years, has been president of the League of Women
Voters and the Rosenberg Foundation, board chairman of
KQED, first woman to chair the San Francisco Housing
Authority, co-founder of the Auxiliary1 to San Francisco
General Hospital, member of the Stanford University board
of trustees and noted lecturer on volunteer services.
Jackson, an international vice-president of the Interna
tional Ladies Garment Workers Union and business
manager of its local units, recently was appointed to a
second term on Board of Permit Appeals. In 19715 she was the
first woman to be elected the board president. A member of
the NAACP and the executive board of the National Council
for Negro Women, she came to San Francisco as a young
woman, supported and educated herself and worked her
way to labor leadership.
'These are the first of many outstanding San Francisco
women we hope to recognize in the new annual awards,"
said Catherine Smallwood, commission coordinator. Informa
tion on luncheon tickets is available by calling 4740TOL
:• The Commission on the Status of Women, created by dry
ordinance in 1975 to find and alleviate inequalities, is now
located at 170 Fell St, Room la Attorney Mary Vail is
commission chair, and its members include Beverly Hayon,
Kathleen H. Arnold, Rosemary Farac, Veronica Hunnicutt,
Carole Jan Lee, Del Martin, Sandy Ouye, August Rothschild
Jr. and H. Marcia Smolens.
Workshops on employment, a resource talent bank to
provide names for job and board openings, and programs in
minority outreach, criminal Justice, education, child care,
housing, legislation and health are among its activities.
" The commission, which has 200 community volunteers on
Its committees, has achieved considerable success in reforms
to open more city civil service jobs and promotions to
women. It has joined other women's groups to work on state s
and national legislation, and it now publishes Womenews, a
quarterly newsletter and clearing house on women's issues.
In 1976, the Friends of the San Francisco Commission on
the Status of Women was created as a non-profit charitable
organization to raise funds for development of commission
programs. Martha Waddell, an investment firm accftunt
executive, is its president Its members worked wtth 'the
commission to select the award winners and plan the Feb. 14
luncheon. Award luncheon co-chairpersons are Joan
Braun, Jane McKaskle Murphy and Reg Murphy.
Appendix IV: Profile of Mrs. Charles, KQED Focus, July, 1979, p. 44
302
THE BOARD
•J
CAROLINE M. CHARLES
She never realized that what
she said was so earth-shaking
HIGH UP ON our special roster of
heros without whom KQED might
never have survived is Caroline M.
Charles, chairman of the KQED Inc.
board. 1973-76. What's unusual in this
is that normally when we speak of
heroes who pulled us through perils
that could have swamped this enter
prise, we are speaking of the/oundfng
fathers and mothers, whose deeds of
courage, vision and plain old hard work
transpired in earlier years. Though
Caroline joined the KQED board in
1960, her period of leadership came
during the turmoil of the early-to-mid
1970s.
A former lecturer in community ser
vices at Mills College. Mrs. Charles her
self devoted so much time to commu
nity service that It appears difficult, in
retrospect, to understand how she had
any time left for KQED. She has been
president of the League of Women
Voters, president of the Rosenberg
Foundation, a member (for 20 years) of
the Stanford University board of trust
ees, co-founder of the Auxiliary to San
Francisco General Hospital, member of
the SF Advisory Board of Health, and
chairman of the SF Housing Authority.
Yet. demanding as these other re
sponsibilities were, it's almost impossi
ble for those who worked with her at
KQED to imagine that she found time
for anything else than KQED. We asked
a number of people who worked with
Caroline to tell us what they remem
bered of the experience. Again and
again, they spoke of how she successful
ly blends forcefulness. leadership, and a
commanding presence with decency,
friendship and a constructive perspec
tive. Those who worked with Caroline
saw that blend in operation time and
time again.
One example occurred in 1973 when
PBS was a ripe target for the Nixon
White House. A historic meeting took
place In the East attended by some of
the lay leadership of PBS (i.e. , represen
tatives of boards of directors of a
number of public broadcasting licens
ees) and the professional leadership of
PBS (i.e., the managers of many of the
licensees). The meeting was historic be
cause it resulted in the statesmanlike
decision to recognize that policy-mak
ing and organizational leadership
should rest with laymen rather than
with the professionals. Imagine the ten
sions and stresses inherent in such a
meeting!
Two participants in the meeting were
particularly strong-willed and, as the
meeting progressed, hostilities grew. As
the barbs flying between them became
increasingly sharp. Caroline took them
aside and said. "Now you two are good
friends of mine and you are going to be
good friends of each other." Each of the
two participants reacted with cries of,
"No way!" Caroline repeated her "pre
diction." The two combatants repeated
their jibes.
Caroline would not quit. She con
tinued to work on them until finally she
forced them to see that they had more In
common than they had in opposition.
Caroline finally got the two people work
ing together during that meeting and
during successive meetings on the
same subject, and they ultimately be
came a close team, working together in
public broadcasting for the ensuing five
years. They also became best of friends.
Another time, the powers-that-be at
HEW had refused to continue their part
of the financing of Sesame Street, an
Important public television staple.
Then, as now, the series was funded by
the Office of Education, the public tele
vision stations themselves, and various
corporations. Since the federal money
was vital to continuation of Sesame
Street, public television made a desper
ate search throughout the country for
somebody who could help.
Eureka! They remembered Caroline
Charles. She called "Cap" Weinberger,
former on-the-air star and board
member of KQED and, at that time. Sec
retary of HEW. Soon the decision was
reversed. Sesame Street was funded.
When PBS tried to find out how this
happened, they were told by an HEW
source that "some little old lady from
303
San Francisco called and gave him (Cap)
hell."
Another aspect of Caroline was as a
highly skilled social leader in the best
sense of that phrase. Once, at rather a
formal gathering at her house — with
12 or 14 guests from the worlds of arts,
social improvement, politics, and pub
lic TV — Caroline took over the conver
sation and asked each guest to report
what he or she was most proud of hav
ing accomplished in the recent past. It
was an entertaining and stimulating
tour de force. It's impossible to think of
another hostess who could have
brought it off.
In 1974, Edmund Ball (Muncie, In
diana). Sid James (Washington, DC)
and Caroline Charles were co-vice
chairmen under Ralph Rogers of the
PBS board. It was one of the most im
portant and critical formative periods
that had faced public broadcasting.
Caroline's role was large. She did a great
deal to smooth troubled waters. Her wit.
determination, people skills, and untir
ing energy made her unique, as Ed Ball
remembers.
She made 2-3 trips to Washington
monthly, and to save working time al
ways took the coach "red eye" flights.
Even then, she apologized for the ex
penses she was generating. Finally the
staff and other board members said:
"Caroline, if you chartered a private
plane for each trip, we would be glad to
pay the costs. Even that wouldn't com
pensate for your value to us." And when
they apologized for scheduling too many
meetings, she would answer. "It's not
an imposition at all. It's a privilege to be
useful to this program."
At one point. Caroline, rushing from
important meeting to important meet
ing — she was usually chairman or pres
ident — asked the time and told it was
noon. Caroline immediately stopped at
a San Francisco gas station, prevailed
upon a long distance supervisor, and
was plugged into a major nationwide
con ference call involvi ng many of public
TV's moguls. Only Caroline would have
arranged this and then managed to
keep up her end of those telephone
negotiations while standing on the
sidewalk.
One of Caroline's passions in the days
before "good communication" had be
come a synonym for godliness, was for
improved communication between
KQED's board, members, staff, viewers,
and critics. Caroline's stewardship
spanned the time when labor problems,
membership revolts, board dissension,
community pressures, fights over pro
gram philosophy, housing problems
and national public TV controversies
had brought KQED's environment to
the boiling point.
Despite pressures, confrontations,
and pickets (at her home as well as
around KQED's studios) and despite
enormous and wearing demands,
Madam Chairman maintained her con
victions and sought for understanding
among the angry, often disparate
groups. During those trying days
Caroline Charles particularly welcomed
reminders of the honorary title be
stowed on her in many times, at many
places, by many persons: "San Fran
cisco's Outstanding Volunteer."
On February 9th, 1976. Caroline was
presented The Public Broadcasting Ser
vice Distinguished Citizen Award, "for
her outstanding contribution to the ad
vancement of public television for the
benefit of the people of the United
States."
Not that she took herself too seriously.
Once, during the '50s. Caroline was lec
turing the San Francisco Junior League
on "How to Be a Better Board Member,"
when the largest earthquake in years
shook the meeting room . . . hard.
There was fear and tension among
those present, but calm prevailed when
Caroline, scarcely missing a beat, said,
"Well. 1 never realized my words were so
earth-shaking."
Toward the end of 1976, Caroline's
world shook again as she was forced
Into semi-retirement by a stroke. But
today, as always, she keeps up with her
friends and her causes, writing spirited
notes from her Russian Hill eyrie and
sallying out into the world on selected
occasions, most recently to receive an
award for distinguished service from
the Auxiliary of the San Francisco
Commission on the Status of Women.
Complledjrom thefond recollections of
Howard Nemerovski. Ed Phtster. Jona
than Rice. Edmund Ball. Germatne Q.
Wong. Ellle Heller. Kitty Lee and Jane
Roe.
304
TAPE GUIDE — Caroline Moore Charles
Interview 1: 1 October 1974
tape 1, side A
tape 1, side B
Interview 2: 16 October 1974
tape 2, side A
tape 2, side B
tape 3, side A [side B not recorded]
Interview 3: 11 November 1974
tape 4, side A
tape 4, side B
tape 5, side A [side B not recorded]
Interview 4: 19 September 1977
tape 6, side A
Interview 5: 3 October 1977
tape 6, side B
tape 7, side A
last part of tape 8, side A, and all of side B, recorded
1 November 1977, located here for continuity
tape 8, side B
Interview 6: 10 October 1977
tape 7, side B
Interview 7: 1 November 1977
tape 8, side A
end tape 8, side A [the rest of the tape has become the beginning
of Chapter 11, p. 150]
Interview 8: 8 November 1977
tape 9, side B [side A is a background interview with attorney
Howard Nemerovski on working with Mrs. Charles on the KQED board
of directors]
tape 10, side A
Interview 9: 18 January 1978
tape 11, side A
Interview 10: 24 January 1978
tape 11, side B
tape 12, side A [side B not recorded]
Interview 11: 9 March 1978
tape 13, side A
tape 13, side B
Interview 12: 17 March 1978
tape 14, side A
Interview 13: 30 March 1978
tape 14, side B
1
1
18
35
35
52
68
78
78
93
109
117
117
131
131
146
150
162
164
164
180
180
183
184
200
205
205
221
221
236
241
241
259
261
261
278
278
305
INDEX ~ CAROLINE CHARLES
Actors' Workshop, 269
aging, 280-282, 287
Alioto, Joseph, 266-267, 280
American Cancer Society, 143
American Friends Service Committee [AFSC], 74
Arendt, Hannah, 123
Ashe, Elizabeth, 124
attorneys,
and community service, 94
and philanthropy, 55-56
Audubon Society, 55-56
Bank of America, 80, 82
blacks. See Negroes
Board of Health, San Francisco. See San Francisco, Board of Health
Boas, Roger, 291
Boutelle, Betty, 103
Brandin, Alf, 218
Bransten, Louise Rosenberg, 32n, 36-38
Brawner, Fuller, 248
Bridges, Harry, 12
Brooks, Thomas, 159, 291
Brown Act, 163
Bush, Martha, 175
business,
and philanthropy, 80-82, 110
Butler, Sheana, 169
California Civic League, San Francisco Center, 152-156
California Youth Authority [CYA] , 33, 87
Campfire Girls, 12, 89, 106
Garden, Mae, 151
Catholic church, 23, 31
Center for Community Development, 75
Central Valley. See San Joaquin Valley
306
Chance, Ruth, 39-40, 47, 49-50, 52-54, 60, 65-68, 70-75, 81, 84-86, 89-92,
98-106, 111-112
Chandler, Norman, 22
Charles, Allan, 7-8, 11-12, 15, 93-95, 99
Charles, Caroline Moore [Mrs. Allan], 1, passim
children, 118, 125, 215
religion, 134-135, 268
parents, 1-5, 9, 35, 144, 147, 225, 232
politics, 161, 282-283
sorority, 201-202
beliefs, 265-268
Chavez, Cesar, 76
chicanos. See Mexican-Americans
child abuse, 92-93, 171
Children's Hospital, San Francisco, 166, 290
Chinese, in San Francisco, 280
Church, Thomas, 257
civil rights, 30
Clausen, Tom, 80, 82
Clifton, Olga, 130, 196, 200, 286
Coldwell, Cedric, 213, 220
communism, fears of, 37-39, 41-45, 109
Community Chest, 156, 186. See also United Bay Area Crusade, United Fund,
United Way
community development, 74-75
Community Research Associates, 53-54, 63
Congress, U.S., 272, 274
Daniels, Arlene, 136, 180, 257, 288
D'Anneo, Jean Charles, 215
Davoran, Mrs., 92
Day, Jim, 245, 249, 263, 272
Delaney, Miss, 152
Deutsch, Monroe, 34, 45, 231
DiGiorgio, Robert, 76, 80, 82
Dinkelspiel, Lloyd, 22, 25, 222, 224
Dobbs, Harold, 291-292
Doolittle, Jean, 14-15
Doyle, Morris, 223-224
draft counseling, 73-74
Duniway, Ben, 73, 100, 229
education, 42-43
educational television, 244, 257, 261, 264. See also KQED, Public Broadcasting
Service
Edwards, Paul, 34, 40
307
Elkus, Charles de Young, Sr., 32-33, 36, 38-40, 44-45, 47-49, 52-53, 56, 63-67,
71, 86
employment, 44, 110
Episcopal church, 34
Faber, Mrs. Harold, 176-177
Fleishhacker, Mortimer, 248-249
Ford Foundation, 71, 255, 272
foundations, 33, 38, 47, 53, 56, 68, 73-74, 84, 88
and community relations, 62, 70, 72
criticisms of, 37-39, 76, 87-88, 109-111
national, 46, 71-72, 79-82, 85, 101-103, 255, 272
organizations of, 103
payout, 84, 91
publications, 50, 53
regulation of, 87-88, 110
see also Rosenberg Foundation
Franklin, Bruce, 226
Fuller, Farmer, 40
Gamble, Babe, 175
Ganyard, Leslie, 32-33, 36, 38, 46, 48, 52, 54, 65-69, 84
Geiger, J.C., 158
Girl Scouts, 13, 89
Goodan, May, 22, 24, 222-223
government, federal,
funding, 30, 44, 48, 52, 53, 88, 91
and volunteers, 149, 286-287
government, local. See San Francisco
government, state
grants to, 87
regulation by, 37
youth programs, 112, 166
Guggenhime, Richard, 40, 64-65, 224-225, 231
Harris, David, 227
Hayes, Denis, 227
Hewlett, William, 68
Holton, Karl, 33, 48, 86-87
housing,
public, 30
self-help, 73-74
in San Francisco, 279-282
Housing Authority, San Francisco, 160-163
308
Institute of Public Relations, 14, 41-42
International Institute, 94
International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union [ILWU], 12
James, William, 267
Junior League, San Francisco, 32, 133, 143-145
Kane, Eneas, 162
KQED television, 29-30, 41, 44, 108-109, 245, 251-252, 254, 257-258, 261, 263
board of directors, 244, 248-252, 257-259
Newsroom program, 245-248, 250, 252, 254, 264, 273
funding, 253-254
auction, 256-257
and commercial television, 262-264
ratings, 264-265
labor, 12
agricultural, 48, 76, 109
KQED strike, 44, 108
unions, 160-161
Ladies' Home Journal, 146
League of Women Voters, 141, 144, 180-181, 279, 283
San Francisco, 18-19, 21, 24-25, 32, 39, 150-156, 159, 193
Life of the Mind. 123
Lillick, Ira, 214
Lipman, Ruth [Mrs. E. C.], 223 li i.^
Luttgens, Leslie [Mrs. William], 21, 2$, 165, 167-169, 173-175, 191
Luttgens, Dr. William, 165
Lyman, Jing [Mrs. Richard], 236-238
Lyman, Richard, 236-237
Mack, Charlotte, 34
Mailliard, Charlotte [Mrs. J. W. , Jr.], 171
Mailliard, Ward, 40-45, 55-56
March of Dimes, 289
May, John R. , 68
McKinnon, Harold, 41
McLaughlin, Emma Moffat, 13-17, 20-21, 35, 39-42, 119, 152, 183, 202-203, 246
men, as volunteers, 190
Merrill, Fred, 185, 189
Miller, Dr. Jeanne Baker, 139, 199
Mills College, 13, 78-79, 84
board of trustees, 64, 99
community service class, 117-119, 121-124, 126-128, 130-143, 296
309
minorities,
and foundations, 80, 88, 108-109
in San Francisco, 279-282
see also Negroes, Chicanos, race relations
Moffatt, Henrietta, 16
Moore, Dick, 249-250
Moore family, 1-2, 4-5, 9, 35, 144, 147, 225, 232
Mosgrove, Alicia, 152
Nathan, Harriet [Mrs. Edward], 155
Negroes, 116
grants to, 167
Nevers, Ernie, 8
Nixon, Richard M. , 109, 272-274
non-profit organizations,
board of directors, 24, 35, 95-96, 105-109
evaluation of, 57-58
funding, 52, 83, 167-175
staff, 99, 147, 191, 193
structure, 18, 20, 25, 27-28
starting, 167-174
see also KQED, League of Women Voters, Rosenberg Foundation, Ford
Foundation, Stanford Hospital Auxiliary
Osterhaus, William, 44
Pacific Oaks School, 105
Pacific Telephone Company, 80, 82
Packard, David, 214
Parsons, Edward, 33-34
philanthropy, 111, 114-115, 159-161, 189
Phleger, Herman, 212-214
Planned Parenthood, 167
Pomeroy, Florette, 146
Presbyterian Hospital, San Francisco, 105, 187-190
Public Broadcasting Service, 257-258, 271-274
Public Dance Hall Committee, San Francisco, 150-153
public television, 109, 174
management, 262-264
see also KQED, Public Broadcasting Service
race relations, 122-123, 187-188
religion,
and community affairs, 112-113, 120
Republican Party, San Francisco County Central Committee, 282
310
Resource Exchange, 160-161, 168, 175, 189
Rice, Jon, 246-247, 261, 263
Roberts, David, 242
Rogers, Dorothy [Mrs. William Lister Rogers], 93, 120
Rogers, Ralph, 272-277
Rosenberg, Max, 111, 117
Rosenberg Foundation, 46, 52, 60, 62, 70, 72, 85-86, 90-91, 102, 110-156,
158, 160, 162-171, 180, 182, 184-185, 188, 244
bylaws, 112
grants, 37, 48-58, 74-81, 84-94, 112
staff, 32, 39, 46, 50, 52, 60, 65-73, 86, 99, 101, 103
trustees, 32-40, 45, 59-66, 86, 88, 98, 100, 104-107
Roth, Lurline [Mrs. William], 195
Roth, William Matson, 189-190, 204
St. Joseph's Hospital, San Francisco, 196
Sanders, Harry, 216, 218
San Francisco, city and county
Board of Health, 157-161
chief administrative office, 159, 195
Housing Authority, 108-109, 160-163, 278-283
housing commission, 186
housing, 279-282
minorities in, 279-282
Mission District, 162
San Francisco Foundation, 129, 160, 181-183, 193, 197
San Francisco News, 113
San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association [SPUR] , 97
San Francisco State College, 169
San Joaquin Valley,
agricultural labor in, 155, 188
fever in, 128
foundation grants in, 116-118, 125, 127-128, 154-155
San Mateo County, 132
Santa Barbara, California, child abuse program, 171
School Resource Volunteers, San Francisco, 129
Shelley, John, 108, 161, 279
Simpson, Anne, 172
Sloss, Eleanor Fleishhacker, 113, 142-144, 177, 179
social change, 114-115, 129, 137, 163, 172, 189-190
social work, 35-36, 55, 63, 112. See also volunteer work
Sorenson, Roy, 53, 63
Sox, Ellis, 158, 160
311
Spaeth, Carl, 40, 71
Spence, Homer, 23, 28, 222
Stanford Hospital,
auxiliary, 25-26, 158, 167-180
move to Palo Alto, 25, 164-167, 170
Stanford Research Institute, 226
Stanford University, 2, 4, 6, 71, 84, 85, 138, 148, 269
alumni association, 23, 230, 238
board of trustees, 9, 21-24, 28, 29-40, 77, 96, 108, 166, 184-187, 189,
212-213, 220, 227-228, 235-241, 268
building and grounds committee, 214-221
nominating committee, 221-224
funding, 255
staff, 99
medical school, 25, 164-167, 170
PACE campaign, 211-213, 221, 223
land development committee, 212-213
students on trustee committees, 234-235
minority admissions, 234
student unrest, 225-228, 231-234, 239
faculty, 217, 226, 229-231, 235
Sterling, Anne [Mrs. Wallace], 231, 236-238
Sterling, Wallace, 40, 166, 170, 213-215, 218, 220, 230-231, 237-238
Stratford, Ursula, 171, 175
Sutton, Maude [Mrs. Effingham Sutton], 39, 152
Teilhard de Chardin, 265-268, 293
Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Association, 123-124
Travelers' Aid Society, 112
Tucker, Phyllis [Mrs. Nion], 195-196, 203
un-American activities committee, California, 37, 39
United States, bicentennial, 29
U.S. Leasing Corporation, 81
University of California, 34, 48
loyalty oath, 41, 45
Prytanean, 46
at San Francisco, 165, 266
University of San Francisco, 42-43
University of the Pacific, 187, 189
Van Loben Sels Foundation, 103
Vierbrock, Grace and Frank, 3
volunteers, 13, 20-21, 128-129
in community service, 28-29, 25, 79, 94-95
leadership, 27, 120, 155-157
training, 121-143
312
volunteers ,
varieties of, 77, 148-149
and federal government, 149, 286-287
in hospitals, 164, 166-167, 193-195
rewards, 176, 197-200
problems with, 178-179, 182
career exploration, 180
men as, 190, 276-277, 279
boards of directors, 269-270
volunteer work, principles of, 120, 122-123, 126-130, 133-134, 136-137,
141-143, 258
Walker, Brooks, Jr., 81
Walter, Stephen, 279
Warnecke, Jack, 217
Watts, Malcolm, 49, 74, 104
Wente, Carl, 76
White, Lynn, 117-118, 121, 146, 285
Wilbur, Brayton, 41
Wilbur, Ray Lyman, 14, 42
Wilson, Kirke, 89, 103
women,
in community service, 14, 17-21, 120-122, 124-125
and education, 2-4, 6-7, 79, 118, 121-123, 126
and foundations, 34, 52, 63, 67, 71, 92
as leaders, 10, 21-24, 120, 219, 222-223, 236
working with, 96
and families, 122, 126
women's issues, 124-125, 135, 148-149, 151-152, 158, 163, 215, 219, 239-240, 243
World Affairs Council, Northern California, 42, 117, 119-120
Wyckoff, Florence R. [Mrs. Hubert], 48
youth,
attitudes, 110
leadership, 23, 89, 111
problems of, 92-93, 157
working with, 78-83
Zellerbach Foundation, 103
Gabrielle Morris
B.A. in economics, Connecticut College, Nev
London; independent study in journalism,
creative vriting.
Historian, U.S. Air Force in England, covering
Berlin Air Lift, military agreements, personnel
studies, 1951-52.
Chief of radio, TV, public relations, major
New England department store; copy chief, net
work radio and TV station in Hartford, Connec
ticut; freelance theatrical publicity and
historical articles, 1953-55-
Research, interviewing, editing, community
planning in child guidance , mental health ,
school planning, civic unrest, for University
of California, Berkeley Unified School District,
Bay Area Social Planning Council, League of
Women Voters, 1956-70.
Research, interviewing, editing on state
administration, civic affairs, and industry,
Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft
Library, University of California at Berkeley,
1970-present .
m